Practical Reason, Misc

We do things in time. Philosophy of action can capture this phenomenon in at least two ways. On one hand, it might focus on the way that temporal preferences and long-term temporal horizons affect the rationality of decisions in the present (see, e.g., Parfit 1984; Rawls 1971). Such work may focus on the way we discount the distant future, for example, or prioritize the future over the past. Approaches of this kind treat time as, in a sense, something external to (...) agency; it sets various constraints on what we may rationally intend, for example. But if temporal considerations can constrain agency, it follows that they can also structure it internally, and if they can do so, it seems likely that this is possible because agency is already temporally structured. This volume focuses on the way that agency is temporally structured from within, such that time is an ineliminable constituent of agency. (shrink)

One of the reasons for adopting hyperbolic discounting is to explain preference reversals. Another is that this value structure suggests an elegant theory of the will. I examine the capacity of the theory to solve Newcomb's problem. In addition, I compare Ainslie's account with other procedural theories of choice that seem at least equally capable of accommodating reversals of preference.

The paper provides a critical discussion of some key aspects of John Broome’s theories of rationality, reasoning and the relations between them.

The author states that it has been a common conviction among philosophers, And still is, That there is an important difference between practical matters and theoretical matters; between answers to such practical questions as 'what is to be done?' and answers to such theoretical questions as 'what is the case?' this distinction has sometimes been thought to be such that though reason can be theoretical there is an important sense in which it cannot be practical. The author maintains that one (...) influential idea might be put vaguely like this: reason is non-Substantive in such a way that unlike theories, Actions, Being events, Are not accessible to it. It is this idea, And its associated view of the practical-Theoretical distinction it is based on, That edgley considers. (staff). (shrink)

Thomas Nagel's The Possibility of Altruism (1970) is one of the few sustained attempts to reject instrumental and prudential conceptions of practical reason and to defend the possibility of practical reason that is impartial or altruistic. Nagel makes claims about both moral motivation and practical reason, and each claim has both negative and positive constituents.

This paper presents an account of akrasia, drawn from the work of William James, that sees akrasia as neither a rational failing (as with most philosophical accounts) nor a moral failing (as with early Christian accounts), but rather a necessary by-product of our status as biological beings. By examining James’s related accounts of motivation and action, I argue that akratic actions occur when an agent attempts to act against her settled habits, but fails to do so. This makes akrasia a (...) product of the agent’s practical failure to adequately structured her environment to bring about her desired action. Akratic action performs the vital function of revealing to the agent the exact point at which her cognitive effort was insufficient for bringing about her intended action. It also reveals that future improvement is within her control. As such, akratic action is the very foundation of James’s meliorism. (shrink)

Carnap wrote a continuation of his reply to Kaplan, which would, however, have made that reply, already by far the longest in the book, too long. So he set aside his projected notes for a continuation to serve as the basis for a separate paper, which he never got around to writing. It is transcribed here from his shorthand and translated into English, with some introductory notes to provide a little context.

Wiggins’ (2012) argument against propositional accounts of knowing how is based on a development of some considerations taken from Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle argued that the knowledge needed for participation in an ethos cannot be codified in propositional form so as to let it be imparted to someone who did not already have it. This is because any putative codification would be incomplete, and require that knowledge in order to extend it to novel cases. On a reasonable interpretation of his (...) argument, Wiggins claims that the same goes for practical knowledge in general, and that this shows that a propositional view of knowing how is incorrect. This paper shows that this argument is unsound. (shrink)

This is the introduction to a special section on Habermas' Theory of Communicative Action, published in Constellations 20:4 (2013), and edited by Maeve Cooke and me.

Abstract In this paper, I ask why Aristotle thinks that ethical virtue (rather than mere self-control) is required for practical wisdom. I argue that a satisfactory answer will need to explain why being prone to bad appetites implies a failing of the rational part of the soul. I go on to claim that the self-controlled person does suffer from such a rational failing: a failure to take a specifically rational kind of pleasure in fine action. However, this still leaves a (...) problem: could there not be someone who (unlike the self-controlled person) took the right kind of pleasure in fine action, but who failed to be virtuous on account of bad appetites? If so, would such a person be practically wise but not virtuous? I end with some suggestions about how Aristotle might answer this. (shrink)

I propose to present a relation between knowledge (Wissen) and human action (Handlung) from the perspective of the German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831). For this, I will use mainly of the Phenomenology of Spirit (Phenomenologie des Geistes) - published in 1807. According the philosopher himself, this work is a science of the experience of consciousness – this was the first name chosen by Hegel for this work (Vaz, 2014, p. 11-12). Throughout the work, it we can see that (...) the philosopher does not make a separation between knowledge and action. That is, he does not regard them as two separate and distinct moments. Therefore, the comprehension of first we knowledge and that only after, we act, or that even the comprehension that we act for the, after that, we may know, are, according Hegel's philosophy, erroneous and insufficient as explanatory models of knowledge and of the human action. On the contrary, the philosopher seeks to unite the two aspects: knowledge and action. Conceiving them as distinct but inseparable. The subject who knowing is the same who is acting. Such a dichotomy between knowing and acting, as is commonly defined, maintains knowledge and characterize it with as passive, inert and static, in front of action, which is as defined as active, dynamic, and mobile. On the contrary, according to the Hegelian philosophy, knowledge itself is already an active, dynamic, and living process (Hegel, 2012, §378). The relation of knowledge between the subject and the object is not a ready, given and immediate relation. On the contrary, this relation presupposes a construction that the subject exercises when he is knowing. The same occur is when the subject is acting. Therefore, a human action is by no means something finished, readily established, and so it only as needs to be performed. On the contrary, an action same itself is a knowledge, that is happening and succeeding as the action unfolds. (shrink)

The paper uses two historical examples, public health (1840-1880) and town planning (1945-1975) in Britain, to analyse the challenges faced by goal-driven research, an increasingly important trend in science policy, as exemplified by the prominence of calls for addressing Grand Challenges. Two key points are argued. (1) Given that the aim of research addressing social or global problems is to contribute to improving things, this research should include all the steps necessary to bring science and technology to fruition. This need (...) is captured by the idea of practical integration, which brings this type of research under the umbrella of collective practical reason rather than under the aegis of science. Achieving practical integration is difficult for many reasons: the complexity of social needs, the plurality of values at stake, the limitation of our knowledge, the elusive nature of the skills needed to deal with uncertainty, incomplete information and asymmetries of power. Nevertheless, drawing from the lessons of the case studies, it is argued that (2) practical integration needs a proper balance between values, institutions and knowledge: i.e. a combination of mutual support and mutual limitation. Pursuing such a balance provides a flexible strategy for approximating practical integration. (shrink)

Do responsibility voids exist? That is, are there situations in which the group is collectively morally responsible for some outcome although no member can be held individually morally responsible for it? To answer these questions, I draw a distinction between competitive and cooperative decision contexts based on the team-reasoning account of cooperation. Accordingly, I provide a reasoning-based analysis of cooperation, competition, moral responsibility, and, last, potential responsibility voids. I then argue that competitive decision contexts are free of responsibility voids. The (...) conditions for the existence of responsibility voids in cooperative decision contexts depend on the type of uncertainty the group faces, either external or coordination uncertainty. (shrink)

In an essay entitled “Freedom and Personality” I have contended that “intelligence is a principle of indetermination within us.” As I find that my argument, though to myself it appears incontrovertible, has not produced conviction in some quarters where I had hoped it might be effective, I can only suppose that, presumably by my own fault, it was not stated as clearly as it should have been. This must be my excuse for returning to the subject; in doing so I (...) shall try to be, to the best of my power, at once brief and lucid. (shrink)

This book treats practical and political reasoning as an active engagement with the world and other people; it cannot be understood as exclusively cognitive and this is seen as a virtue rather than a deficiency. Informal, emotional, characterological, aesthetic and interactional aspects of thought can be constituents of reasonable arguing. The work examines key capacities connected with argumentation, in a variety of fields from professional and medical ethics to work organization and the practice of art.

Part One defends the thesis, first advanced by Aristotle, that the conclusion of practical reasoning is an action, and argues for its philosophical significance. Opposition to the thesis rests on a contestable way of distinguishing between acts and contents of reasoning and on a picture of normative principles as external to the actions that fall under them. The resulting view forces us to choose between the efficacious, world-changing character of practical thought and its subjection to objective rational standards. This is (...) a false choice. Aristotle's own understanding of the thesis points the way to an alternative conception of practical reason on which it is at once a power to effect changes in the world and to get things right. Practical reasoning endows the action performed on its basis with a principle that is not imposed on it from outside: instead, it makes the action what it is. Properly understood in terms of the relevant acts of a rational subject, the thesis is defensible and philosophically attractive. Furthermore, it helps us understand the continuity and discontinuity that exists between the motions of human beings and those of other animals, as Aristotle showed. (shrink)

Recently, much attention has been paid to ‘rational requirements’ and, especially, to what I call ‘rational requirements of formal coherence as such’. These requirements are satisfied just when our attitudes are formally coherent: for example, when our beliefs do not contradict each other. Nevertheless, these requirements are puzzling. In particular, it is unclear why we should satisfy them. In light of this, I explore the conjecture that there are no requirements of formal coherence. I do so by trying to construct (...) a theory of error for the idea that there are such requirements. (shrink)

This thesis examines compatibilist theories in relation to developments in the philosophy of action, beginning with the Humean "desire model" which dominated early in this century. It is argued that these "dissolutionist" forms of compatibilism failed to capture the meaning of "responsibility" and "free will" as ordinarily understood, partly because they depended on an inadequate theory of action and practical reasoning. Chapter III explores the role and meaning of "can" in compatibilist theories, arguing that the dissolutionist hypothetical analysis of "can" (...) is also a failure. In chapter IV and V, I argue that the nature of practical reasoning presupposes distinctions between desiring and valuing as sources of motivation, and between the standpoint of the agent and the standpoint of the observer. The standpoint of the agent emerges as central to our notion of free action and to the fundamental meaning we attach to "can". While this does not mean that reasons cannot be causes, it shows that the language of action and the language of occurrences is incommensurable. The question becomes: whether what is affirmed within the agent standpoint can be logically reconciled with what is believed from the "observer" point of view without becoming "epiphenomenal". ;Chapters VI and VII argue that the "agent standpoint" is also central to our ordinary distinctions between actions and occurrences, and that Humean event causal theories of action fail to capture this distinction. Chapter VIII re-examines the question of compatibilism as an attempt to reconcile agent and spectator standpoints. Here I argue that because the languages of the two standpoints cannot be kept clearly apart, what looks like informal contradictions between the two levels do arise, and that while the incommensurability of the two languages does not permit a demonstration of formal contradictions between them, it also does not allow us to show how and why such informal contradictions can be resolved. Finally, I argue that unless we are prepared to distinguish ontological levels, we cannot explain how the two languages could be intelligibly "about" the same thing without exposing the agent standpoint to the threat of epiphenomenalism. (shrink)