David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ethics 120 (3):526-556 (2010)
Practical commitment is Janus-faced, looking outward toward the expectations it creates and inward toward their basis in the agent’s will. This paper criticizes Kantian attempts to link these facets and proposes an alternative. Contra David Velleman, the availability of a conspiratorial perspective (not yours, not your interlocutor’s) is what allows you to understand yourself as making a lying promise – as committing yourself ‘outwardly’ with the deceptive reasoning that Velleman argues cannot provide a basis for self-understanding. Moreover, the intrapersonal availability of such a third perspective is what enables you to commit yourself ‘inwardly.’ Here I offer an alternative to Christine Korsgaard’s account of practical commitment, on which committing yourself requires identifying yourself with a principle. You needn’t identify yourself with a principle, I argue, because the unity at which you aim when you commit yourself is a unity not with your acting self but with a later perspective, where the relation is one of self-intelligibility, not self-justification, and therefore needn’t be mediated by principles. This ‘twice-future’ perspective – neither your present intending nor your (once-)future acting but a third perspective that looks back on that relation – plays the intrapersonal role played in interpersonal commitment by potential co-conspirators. Kantians are therefore right to link your ability to commit yourself with your ability credibly to express that commitment to others. But the linkage generates a strikingly unKantian result. The nature of agency cannot provide an apriori basis for honesty because what enables you to commit yourself is what also enables you to lie.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
Edward Hinchman (2013). Rational Requirements and 'Rational' Akrasia. Philosophical Studies 166 (3):529-552.
Similar books and articles
Ward E. Jones (2003). Is Scientific Theory-Commitment Doxastic or Practical? Synthese 137 (3):325 - 344.
Brendan Sweetman (2003). Commitment, Justification, and the Rejection of Natural Theology. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 77 (3):417-436.
Edward Hinchman (2012). Reflection, Disagreement, and Context. American Philosophical Quarterly 49 (2):95.
Howard Peacock (2011). Two Kinds of Ontological Commitment. Philosophical Quarterly 61 (242):79-104.
Edward S. Hinchman (2014). Narrative and the Stability of Intention. European Journal of Philosophy 22 (2):111-140.
Sarah Stroud (2001). Moral Commitment and Moral Theory. Journal of Philosophical Research 26:381-398.
Bruno Verbeek (2007). Rational Self-Commitment. In Fabienne Peter & Hans Bernhard Schmidt (eds.), rationality and commitment. Oup Oxford.
Manuel Carlos Vallejo (2009). The Effects of Commitment of Non-Family Employees of Family Firms From the Perspective of Stewardship Theory. Journal of Business Ethics 87 (3):379 - 390.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads144 ( #8,951 of 1,696,303 )
Recent downloads (6 months)53 ( #3,236 of 1,696,303 )
How can I increase my downloads?