Graduate studies at Western
Mind 120 (477):155-182 (2011)
|Abstract||The distinction between action and omission is of interest in both theoretical and practical philosophy. We use this distinction daily in our descriptions of behaviour and appeal to it in moral judgements. However, the very nature of the act/omission distinction is as yet unclear. Jonathan Bennett’s account of the distinction in terms of positive and negative facts is one of the most promising attempts to give an analysis of the ontological distinction between action and omission. According to Bennett’s account, an upshot is the result of an agent’s action if and only if the relevant fact about her conduct is positive. A proposition about an agent’s conduct is positive if and only if most possible movements of the agent would not have made that proposition true. However, Bennett’s account will fail unless it is possible to make sense of claims about ‘most possible movements of the agent’. We need a way of comparing the size of subsets of the behaviour space (the set of possible movements). I argue that Bennett’s own method of comparison is unsatisfactory. I present an alternative method of comparing subsets of the behaviour space|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Christopher J. Anderson (2005). Alternative Perspectives on Omission Bias. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (4):544-544.
Fiona Woollard (2008). Doing and Allowing, Threats and Sequences. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 89 (2):261–277.
Fiona Woollard (2010). Doing/Allowing and the Deliberative Requirement. Ratio 23 (2):199-216.
Joshua Shepherd (forthcoming). Causalism and Intentional Omission. American Philosophical Quarterly.
William J. Fitzpatrick (2006). The Intend/Foresee Distinction and the Problem of “Closeness”. Philosophical Studies 128 (3):585 - 617.
Hans Lindahl (2011). Boundaries and the Concept of Legal Order. Jurisprudence 2 (1):73-97.
John Oberdiek (2004). Lost in Moral Space: On the Infringing/Violating Distinction and its Place in the Theory of Rights. [REVIEW] Law and Philosophy 23 (4):325 - 346.
Michael Ridge, Reasons for Action: Agent-Neutral Vs. Agent-Relative. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Jonathan Francis Bennett (1995). The Act Itself. Oxford University Press.
Bennett W. Helm (2001). Emotional Reason: Deliberation, Motivation, and the Nature of Value. Cambridge University Press.
Don Locke (1974). Action, Movement, and Neurophysiology. Inquiry 17 (1-4):23 – 42.
Toni Rønnow-Rasmussen (2009). Normative Reasons and the Agent-Neutral/Relative Dichotomy. Philosophia 37 (2):227-243.
Timothy Chappell (2002). Two Distinctions That Do Make a Difference: The Action/Omission Distinction and the Principle of Double Effect. Philosophy 77 (2):211-233.
Joachim Asscher (2008). The Moral Distinction Between Killing and Letting Die in Medical Cases. Bioethics 22 (5):278–285.
Added to index2011-05-18
Total downloads38 ( #36,090 of 751,836 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,163 of 751,836 )
How can I increase my downloads?