It is my impression that many referees think of peer review as essentially trying to come up with objections against the main thesis of any paper they are reviewing. That is, it appears that many referees subscribe to the following principle of peer review:
(PR) If there is a serious objection (or serious objections) against the main thesis of the paper under review, then recommend rejection.
Now, (PR) implies that no philosophy paper is worthy of acceptance. Why? Because Philosophy’s track record suggests that, at some point, someone will come up with a serious objection to a philosophical thesis that seemed to be well-defended at the time. In other words, for any given philosophical thesis, there are probably unconceived objections, i.e., objections that no one has thought of yet. If that is the case, then those referees who adhere to (PR) should never recommend acceptance, since there are probably unconceived objections against the main thesis of any given paper they are reviewing.
So, if you are a referee who adheres to (PR), then you are committed to the claim that no philosophy paper is worthy of publication in any journal. If this consequence strikes you as absurd, then you should change your refereeing ways.