David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ethics 115 (3):443-470 (2005)
I wish to examine a rather different way of thinking about permissibility, one according to which, roughly speaking, an agent acts impermissibly if and only if he acts for reasons insufficient to justify him in doing what he does. For reasons that will emerge in Section II, I call this the inferential account of permissibility. I shall not here try to prove that this account is superior to its rivals. My aims are more modest. I shall develop the inferential account, exhibiting some of its attractions along the way, and then show that it is invulnerable to a number of influential objections to the very idea that an agent's reasons for acting could be directly relevant to whether he acts permissibly. If these objections have seemed decisive, it is because we have not considered the full range of possible accounts. The inferential account of permissibility is both plausible and attractive---it deserves to be taken seriously.
|Keywords||permissibility practical reasoning|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Dustin Locke (2015). Practical Certainty. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 90 (1):72-95.
Dana Kay Nelkin & Samuel C. Rickless (2014). Three Cheers for Double Effect. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 89 (1):125-158.
William J. FitzPatrick (2012). The Doctrine of Double Effect: Intention and Permissibility. Philosophy Compass 7 (3):183-196.
Jon Garthoff (2015). The Priority and Posteriority of Right. Theoria 81 (3):222-248.
Alec Walen (2006). The Doctrine of Illicit Intentions. Philosophy and Public Affairs 34 (1):39–67.
Similar books and articles
Karl Schafer (2008). Practical Reasoning and Practical Reasons in Hume. Hume Studies 34 (2):189-208.
Jonathan Dancy (2000). Intention and Permissibility, II. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 74 (1):319–338.
Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen (2012). Intentions and Discrimination in Hiring. Journal of Moral Philosophy 9 (1):55-74.
T. M. Scanlon (2000). Intention and Permissibility, I. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 74 (1):301–317.
Simon Wigley (2009). Disappearing Without a Moral Trace? Rights and Compensation During Times of Emergency. Law and Philosophy 28 (6):617 - 649.
Thomas Kroedel (2012). The Lottery Paradox, Epistemic Justification and Permissibility. Analysis 72 (1):57-60.
Bruce Aune (1986). Formal Logic and Practical Reasoning. Theory and Decision 20 (3):301-320.
Amir Saemi (2009). Intention and Permissibility. Ethical Perspectives 16 (1):81-101.
Jakob Elster (2012). Scanlon on Permissibility and Double Effect. Journal of Moral Philosophy 9 (1):75-102.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads49 ( #74,261 of 1,777,429 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #205,424 of 1,777,429 )
How can I increase my downloads?