Suppose, for instance, that one accepts a view on which conscious beings are the only composite objects.
Now, one doesn't have to accept universalism to avoid the doctrine of eternal hell — one can accept some view on which those who don't make it to heaven are (eventually or right away) annihilated.
For suppose that one puts forward a view on which both of the following claims are true: the moral law does not depend on, nor is it identical with, God's commands; but God necessarily commands us to follow the moral law.
To avoid such gaps, one might move to a view on which there are uninstantiated types.
So K2′ is false: it's true that each is a desk iff the other is since neither is a desk but it doesn't follow that there's more than one or fewer than one desk.[52] Finally, one might deny K3, either by accepting an eliminativist view on which there is no desk in the office or by accepting a same-kind permissivist view on which there are at least two desks in the office.
You might, for example, put forward a pacifist view, on which any sort of war is immoral.
Until then ministers will not be free to express a view on which way they are likely to vote.
Government, whether Labour or Conservative, needs to formulate a clear view on which industries are considered strategic.
This paper explores several single scoreboard options for contextualists, opting in the end for the "gap view," on which neither of our debaters speaks truthfully.
Instead, Keller defends the individuals view, on which reasons of partiality arise from the value of the individuals with whom our relationships are shared.
The first is that there are many areas of policy, including economics, where there is no "right" view on which experts agree.
