Graduate studies at Western
|Abstract||Among our distinctive abilities, one is particularly remarkable: The capacity to control our future conduct by taking future-directed decisions. In virtue of their binding force on future conduct, future-directed decisions are indispensable for the success of most of our projects. These decisions and the commitments that they generate are pervasive and familiar phenomena of diachronic agency. Nonetheless, their alleged binding force appears puzzling when it is subjected to philosophical scrutiny.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Mark van Vuuren & François Cooren (2010). “My Attitude Made Me Do It”: Considering the Agency of Attitudes. [REVIEW] Human Studies 33 (1):85-101.
Joseph Heath (2009). The Uses and Abuses of Agency Theory. Business Ethics Quarterly 19 (4):497-528.
Anthony Wrigley (2012). Harm to Future Persons: Non-Identity Problems and Counterpart Solutions. [REVIEW] Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (2):175-190.
Frank Arntzenius, Adam Elga & and John Hawthorne (2004). Bayesianism, Infinite Decisions, and Binding. Mind 113 (450):251-283.
Andrei A. Buckareff (2006). Doxastic Decisions and Controlling Belief. Acta Analytica 21 (1):102-114.
Lydia Moland (2011). Agency and Practical Identity: A Hegelian Response to Korsgaard. Metaphilosophy 42 (4):368-375.
Luca Ferrero (2010). Decisions, Diachronic Autonomy, and the Division of Deliberative Labor. Philosophers' Imprint 10 (2).
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads15 ( #86,080 of 739,518 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,778 of 739,518 )
How can I increase my downloads?