Philosophical Studies 133 (3):391 - 409 (2007)
|Abstract||It is widely held that any justifying reason for making a decision must also be a justifying reason for doing what one thereby decides to do. Desires to win decision prizes, such as the one that figures in Kavka’s toxin puzzle, might be thought to be exceptions to this principle, but the principle has been defended in the face of such examples. Similarly, it has been argued that a command to intend cannot give one a justifying reason to intend as commanded. Here it is argued that ordinary agents in ordinary cases can have justifying reasons for deciding that are not and will not be justifying reasons for doing what, in making those decisions, they come to intend to do. The paper concludes with some brief observations on the functions of decision-making.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Barbara Libby & Vincent Agnello (2000). Ethical Decision Making and the Law. Journal of Business Ethics 26 (3):223 - 232.
Joshua Gert (2003). Requiring and Justifying: Two Dimensions of Normative Strength. Erkenntnis 59 (1):5 - 36.
Luca Ferrero (2010). Decisions, Diachronic Autonomy, and the Division of Deliberative Labor. Philosophers' Imprint 10 (2).
Jillian Craigie (2011). Competence, Practical Rationality and What a Patient Values. Bioethics 25 (6):326-333.
Randolph Clarke (2008). Autonomous Reasons for Intending. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 86 (2):191 – 212.
Søren Holm (2001). Autonomy, Authenticity, or Best Interest: Everyday Decision-Making and Persons with Dementia. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 4 (2):153-159.
Herman E. Stark (2004). Reasons Without Principles. Inquiry 47 (2):143 – 167.
Sarah K. Paul (2012). How We Know What We Intend. Philosophical Studies 161 (2):327-346.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads6 ( #145,761 of 550,802 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,425 of 550,802 )
How can I increase my downloads?