Pratical Reason, Misc

Decision theorists generally object to “honoring sunk costs” – that is, treating the fact that some cost has been incurred in the past as a reason for action, apart from the consideration of expected consequences. This paper critiques the doctrine that sunk costs should never be honored on three levels. As background, the rationale for the doctrine is explained. Then it is shown that if it is always irrational to honor sunk costs, then other common and uncontroversial practices are also (...) irrational. Second, it is argued that there is no satisfactory way to make a distinction between the two kinds of cases. Third, a proposal is developed which would explain how it could be rational, under certain circumstances, to honor sunk costs. (shrink)

This paper critically reviews the arguments supporting rational genuine satisficing. The deconstructive effort unearths inherent problems with the position in both static and dynamic contexts. Many of these arguments build on Herbert Simon’s canonical arguments surrounding incommensurability and demandingness problems. Optimizing is re-constructed using the principles of instrumental satisficing to answer these charges. The resulting conception is both obviously undemanding and a recognizable response to focused decision making.

In this paper, I argue that we have obligations not only to perform certain actions, but also to have certain attitudes (such as desires, beliefs, and intentions), and this despite the fact that we rarely, if ever, have direct voluntary control over our attitudes. Moreover, I argue that whatever obligations we have with respect to actions derive from our obligations with respect to attitudes. More specifically, I argue that an agent is obligated to perform an action if and only if (...) it’s the action that she would perform if she were to have the attitudes that she ought to have. This view, which I call attitudism, has three important implications. First, it implies that an adequate practical theory must not be exclusively act-orientated. That is, it must require more of us than just the performance of certain voluntary acts. Second, it implies that an adequate practical theory must be attitude-dependent. That is, it must hold that what we ought to do depends on what attitudes we ought to have. Third, it implies that no adequate practical theory can require us to perform acts that we would not perform even if we were to have the attitudes that we ought to have. I then show how these implications can help us both to address certain puzzling cases of rational choice and to understand why most typical practical theories (utilitarianism, rational egoism, virtue ethics, Rossian deontology, etc.) are mistaken. (shrink)

This is Chapter 3 of my Commonsense Consequentialism: Wherein Morality Meets Rationality. In this chapter, I defend the teleological conception of practical reasons, which holds that the reasons there are for and against performing a given act are wholly determined by the reasons there are for and against preferring its outcome to those of its available alternatives, such that, if S has most reason to perform x, all things considered, then, of all the outcomes that S could bring about, S (...) has most reason to desire that Ox (i.e., x’s outcome) obtains, all things considered. (shrink)

The performance of one option can entail the performance of another. For instance, I have the option of baking a pumpkin pie as well as the option of baking a pie, and the former entails the latter. Now, suppose that both of these options are permissible. This raises the issue of which, if either, is more fundamental than the other. Is baking a pie permissible because it’s permissible to perform some instance of pie-baking, such as pumpkin-pie baking? Or is baking (...) a pumpkin pie permissible because it’s permissible to bake a pie? Or are they equally fundamental, as they would be if they were both permissible because, say, they both have optimal consequences? The aim of this paper is to compare two alternative responses to this issue—omnism and maximalism—and to argue that the latter is preferable. Roughly speaking, maximalism is the view that only those options that are not entailed by any other option are to be assessed in terms of whether they have some right-making feature F (such as that of having optimal consequences), whereas omnism is the view that all options are to be assessed in terms of whether they are F. I argue that maximalism is preferable to omnism because it provides a more plausible solution to the problem of act versions and is not subject to any problems of its own. And if I’m right about maximalism’s being preferable to omnism, then most moral theories, which are all versions of omnism, need significant revision. (shrink)

We often appeal to the notion of an agent’s commitment to action to characterize, e.g., an agent’s faithfulness to a promise she has given to another, her robust disposition to pursue a goal she values or cares about, and her determination to stick to that goal. In the philosophy of action, that notion is often associated with the idea of an agent’s intention to act. In ethics, it is associated primarily with the idea of an agent’s commitment to, or endorsement (...) of, a certain norm. This essay argues that both these ideas, of intention and of normative endorsement, are central to the –or, at least, an—ordinary notion of an agent’s (psychological) commitment to action. In so doing, the essay also sheds light on important features of intention. -/- Keywords: commitment – intention – normative endorsement – stability across contexts – coordination. (shrink)

One of Bratman’s aims in Planning, Time, and Self-Governance is to develop his insights regarding planning to shed light on temptation. I focus on the main case of temptation Bratman appeals to in supporting his conclusion that it can be rational for an agent facing temptation to stick to her prior plan even if she finds herself with an evaluative judgment that favors deviating. Bratman’s reasoning is meant to be consistent with the priority of present evaluation, and to be sensitive (...) to Smart’s insight that, as Bratman puts it, ‘inference from the advantages of the general habit [of non-reconsideration] directly to a specific conclusion about what to do on the present occasion, once the question of what to do on the present occasion is raised, is fraught.’ My reasoning suggests that, interpreted in one way, the case Bratman uses to make his argument is not clearly a case of giving in to temptation (or else not a case that requires the sort of novel contribution Bratman thinks is needed); and interpreted otherwise, the case does not raise exactly the challenges Bratman suggests it does, and the challenges it does raise are not directly addressed by the solution Bratman provides. (shrink)

Michael Huemer claims to give an ontological proof of robust moral realism, the influential view that we have non-selfish, categorical, observer-independent reasons for action. This paper argues that one of Huemer’s premises – that knowing that baby torture is not objectively wrong would provide us with no first-person reasons to torture babies – is false of agents with sadistic desires. This in turn falsifies Huemer’s further premise that the premises of his “Antitorture Argument” are true independent of interests, desires, or (...) other attitudes. My refutation is then shown to not only deepen extant doubts about whether robust realists can adequately account for the first-person normative authority of morality. It also suggests that realists about categorical moral reasons must either complete a project – moral constructivism – which has never clearly succeeded, or else defend views on the nature of categorical reasons that strain credulity and beg the question against their opponents. (shrink)

What is the function of morality—what is it all about? What is the basis of morality—what explains our moral agency and patiency? This essay defends a unique Kantian answer to these questions. Morality is about securing our independence from each other by giving each other equal discretion over whether and how we interact. The basis of our moral agency and patiency is practical reason. The first half addresses objections that this account cannot explain the moral patiency of beings who are (...) not also moral agents such as infantile, elderly, and infirm human beings and the other animals who are not moral agents. The second half argues that this account is preferable, on grounds of consistency with the basic Kantian account of the function and content of morality, to the familiar account of our moral patiency, popular especially though not exclusively with contemporary Kantians, in terms of the value of humanity. (shrink)

Some pragmatists hold that there are both practical and epistemic reasons to believe. A crucial issue for this view is how epistemic and practical reasons should be weighed against each other to deliver all-things-considered verdicts regarding what one ought to believe. According to threshold models, when the strength of practical reasons for belief exceeds a certain threshold, practical reasons become prior to epistemic reasons. These models are affected by a threshold problem: they fail to specify the threshold at which practical (...) reasons take priority. This prevents them from being sufficiently informative and well-motivated. This paper proposes a response to the threshold problem. I argue that in most situations there are higher-order practical reasons for conforming to epistemic reasons. These higher-order practical reasons in turn determine the threshold. This threshold view yields intuitive verdicts across various cases and provides a clear guide for determining when we should believe for practical rather than epistemic reasons. Moreover, the view can explain why exceeding the threshold triggers the priority of practical reasons over epistemic reasons, and why the threshold is context dependent. (shrink)

This paper offers an account of deontic normativity in terms of attributive goodness. An action is permissible for S in C just in case there is a good practical inference available to S in C that results in S performing (or intending to perform) the action. The standards of goodness for practical inferences are determined by what is a good or bad exercise of the human capacity of practical reason, which is an attributive (and not a deontic) assessment.

Subjectivists about practical normativity hold that an agent’s favoring and disfavoring attitudes give rise to practical reasons. On this view, an agent’s normative reason to choose vanilla over chocolate ice cream ultimately turns on facts about what appeals to her rather than facts about what her options are like attitude-independently. Objectivists—who ground reasons in the attitude-independent features of the things we aim at—owe us an explanation of why it is rational to choose what we favor, if not because favoring is (...) a source of reasons. My aim in this paper is to supply such a story. The proposal is roughly that when an agent cannot base her choices on her judgments about what she has most reason to do, structural rationality extends to her a license to choose something just because she favors it, without imbuing favoring with the authority of a normative reason. (shrink)

A lineage of prominent philosophers who have discussed the second-person relation can be regarded as advancing structural accounts. They posit that the second-person relation effects one transformative change to the structure of practical reasoning. In this paper, I criticise this orthodoxy and offer an alternative, substantive account. That is, I argue that entering into second-personal relations with others does indeed affect one's practical reasoning, but it does this not by altering the structure of one's agential thought, but by changing what (...) reasons can become available. The importance of second-personal thought for action is heterogenous. Second-person relations make possible the emergence of a wide variety of different kinds of practical reasons: creating some, revealing others. Recognising this diminishes the appeal of the traditional, structural accounts of the practical significance of such second-personal relations. Moving away from structural accounts facilitates a more thorough understanding of the intersubjective form of action. (shrink)

The editors introduce the themed issue “stigmergy 3.0”.

Proponents of temporal neutrality have challenged the intuitive appeal of future-bias: The intuitive appeal of future-bias is limited to a set of isolated cases that involve only hedonic and self-regarding goods and harms. They suggest that we should treat future-bias as irrational in self-regarding hedonic cases too, or at least not treat the intuitive appeal as evidence for future-bias's permissibility, since hedonic and non-hedonic cases are relevantly similar. This paper defends the rationality of future-bias against this concern. Firstly, hedonic goods (...) and harms mostly concern well-being at a time, while the proposed non-hedonic goods concern lifetime goodness. This is a relevant structural difference between hedonic and non-hedonic goods and harms that warrant different attitude patterns, including the applicability of future-bias. Secondly, the degree of idealisation required to make intuitions favour temporal neutrality obscures the weight of intuitions to a level that makes it unreliable as evidence against the permissibility of future-bias. As temporal neutralists need this degree of idealisation of their cases, the argument fails. In summary, we can keep using intuitive support as evidence for future-bias's rationality, at least when it comes to hedonic goods, but to some extent for its general permissibility. (shrink)

This will be a volume on problems of choice with four sections dedicated to: normativity and choice, rationality and choice, value and choice, morality and choice. Chapters by: Chrisoula Andreau, Paul Bloomfield, Krister Bykvist, Sophie Grace Chappell, David Copp, Guy Fletcher, Joshua Gert, Olasv Gjelsvik, Natalie Gold, Marina Moreno, Fredrik Nyseth, Wlodek Rabinowicz, Andrew Reisner, Caj Strandberg, Sarah Stroud, Johanna Thoma.

The paper develops a new model of instrumental rationality: There is a general concept of instrumental rationality that has two types of instances that differ with regard to coherence and scope. The ‘primary aspect’ applies in effect only to cases where an agent has reason to do what she intends to do and corresponds to a narrow-scope requirement. The ‘secondary aspect’ applies also to cases where an agent does not have reason to do what she intends to do and corresponds (...) to a wide-scope requirement. The model has a number of significant features: (i) It enables accounts of the connections between instrumental rationality and coherence. (ii) It enables accounts of the connections between instrumental rationality and reasons. (iii) It makes it possible to explain different cases of instrumental rationality and irrationality and how they are related to one another. The model can be employed by both structure-based and reason-based views on instrumental rationality that consequently may make use of its explanatory resources. (shrink)

This article argues that integrity requires living up to the requirements of our core commitments. I argue that an agent who violates the requirements of her core commitments and ceases to be integrated suffers a _practical death_: an experience characterized by psychological crisis, loss of direction, and a diminished capacity for instrumental reasoning. Because these conditions undermine self-governance, the account I offer illuminates an important but underexplored connection between integrity and self-governance.

The debate on moral norms and standards is as old as philosophy itself. But social norms and conventions have finally started attracting their fair share of attention too. Their authority is the topic of two sophisticated books published in the last few years, namely David Owens’ Bound by Convention (2022) and Laura Valentini’s Morality and Socially Constructed Norms (2023). In this essay, I present the theoretical outlooks of these two books and then proceed to criticize both. First, I point out (...) a small but significant flaw in Valentini’s ontological account of social norms, according to which such norms obtain in virtue of the beliefs and commitments of rule-followers. More specifically, I argue that such an account – to make sense – should include a reference to the desires of rule followers too. Then, I develop Valentini's crucial criticism against Owens, according to which Owens' account cannot make sense of the obligatory character of certain social norms. In this respect I argue that Owens’ answer to such criticism fails in a way that reveals even deeper flaws than Valentini recognizes. (shrink)

Particularism is widely conceived to endorse the view that moral reason is context-dependent. This being so, it is often accused of flattening the moral landscape—treating the feature of promise-keeping as constituting no more of a (moral) reason for action than the feature of wearing a yellow shoelace in advance of the considerations of the contexts. In reply, Dancy maintains that his particularism allows some features such as promise-keeping to have a reason status by default, ontologically speaking; it is just that (...) their default reason status might get ‘switched off’ in some contexts. In this paper, I will argue that Dancy's ontological understanding of default reason wouldn't help the particularists address the flattening objection, due to a violation of what Tsu calls ‘the embedded thesis’, which is a general constraint on how moral reason behaves. However, once the nature of default reason is correctly understood as psychological, particularism will be enabled to deflate the flattening objection, or so I will argue. (shrink)

Some philosophers think that knowledge or justification is both necessary and sufficient for rational action: they endorse knowledge-action or justification-action biconditionals. This paper offers a novel, metaphysical challenge to these biconditionals, which proceeds with a familiar question: What depends on what? If you know that p iff it is rational for you to act on p, do you know that p partly because it is rational for you to act on p, or is it rational for you to act on (...) p partly because you know that p? And a structurally similar question can be asked regarding justification-action biconditionals. I argue that proponents of these biconditionals cannot give a satisfactory answer to these questions. This is because each direction of these biconditionals strongly supports an opposite order of explanation to the one that is supported by the other direction. Given the traditional assumption that metaphysical explanations—even partial ones—are asymmetric, I argue that these biconditionals should be rejected. While knowledge might be necessary for rational action, and it might be sufficient, it cannot be both. And the same goes for justification. (shrink)

One proposed explanation for a particular kind of temporal preference lies in a disparity between the emotional intensity of memory compared to anticipation. According to the memory/anticipation disparity explanation, the utility of anticipation of a particular event if that event is future, whether positive or negative, is greater than the utility of retrospection of that same event if it is past, whether positive or negative, and consequently, overall utility is maximised when we prefer negative events to be located in the (...) past rather than the future, and positive ones in the future rather than the past. To have this preference is to be (at least apparently) future biased. If this explanation is correct, it would tend to confer rational justification upon these preferences. This paper empirically investigates this explanation. Our results suggest that, at most, this explanation might be a partial one of some people’s preferences some of the time, rather than a general explanation of future bias. In turn, this lends some indirect support to a competing explanation that appeals to temporal asymmetries in emotion and attention. Since that explanation would arguably tend not to confer rational justification upon (apparently) future-biased preferences, we argue that our findings provide some reason to be sceptical that these preferences are, in general, rationally justified. (shrink)

In this chapter, I defend a novel metanormative view called non-ardent non-naturalism. The central claim of this view is that moral facts (and normative facts more generally) are non-natural but not authoritatively prescriptive. My main argument for this view is cumulative: I formulate five attractive metanormative claims and argue that while non-ardent non-naturalism accommodates all these claims, its main rivals fail to do so. These claims are: (i) the Moorean intuition, (ii) the Just-Too-Different intuition, (iii) the Frege-Geach insight, (iv) the (...) obscurity of—and lack of sufficient evidence for—ontological lightness, and (v) the Mackiean intuition. Along the way, I discuss various related issues, such as how the notions of ardent normative realism and authoritative prescriptivity can be understood. (shrink)

Some Kantians argue that freedom is not a metaphysical property that we might or might not possess, but instead an idea or presupposition that we must adopt from the practical standpoint. In doing so, they look to secure our freedom, no matter what science or theoretical reason reveals about us. This paper lays out two problems for this position. The problems are both metaphysical and epistemic. The metaphysical issues are that conceiving of freedom as an idea or presupposition that we (...) must adopt from the practical standpoint makes it especially difficult to account for _interaction_ between freedom and experience, but also why some things occupy a practical standpoint where others do not. The epistemic issue is that the standpoint view struggles to account for _knowledge_ of freedom in experience. I contend that these problems are decisive, and that we should abandon the standpoint view of freedom. (shrink)

Ang tradisyong pilosopikal sa paglapit sa moralidad ay pangunahing nakabatay sa mga konsepto at teoryang metapisikal at teolohikal. Sa mga tradisyunal na konsepto ng etika, ang pinakaprominente ay ang Divine Command Theory (DCT). Ayon sa DCT, ang Diyos ang nagbibigay ng moral na pundasyon sa sangkatauhan sa pamamagitan ng paglikha at Rebelasyon. Ang moralidad at pagka-Diyos ay hindi mapaghihiwalay mula pa noong pinakalumang sibilisasyon. Ang mga konseptong ito ay nakalubog sa isang teolohikal na balangkas at malawakang tinatanggap ng karamihan sa (...) mga tagasunod ng tatlong tradisyong Abrahamiko: Hudaismo, Kristiyanismo, at Islam, na bumubuo sa malaking bahagi ng populasyon ng tao. Dahil nakabatay sa pananampalataya at Rebelasyon, ang mga Divine Command Theories ay hindi mahigpit na nasasaklaw ng demonstrasyon. Ang mga kalaban ng Divine Command na konsepto ng moralidad, na nakabatay sa imposibilidad ng demonstrasyon ng mga metapisikal at relihiyosong palagay nito, ay sinubukan sa loob ng maraming siglo (bagamat hindi matagumpay) na bawasan ang kahalagahan nito. Inihain nila ang argumento na wala itong maipakitang materyal na ebidensya at lohikal na pagkakaugnay, at dahil dito, hindi ito maaaring isaalang-alang para sa mga layuning maka-agham o pilosopikal. Isa lamang itong paniniwala at, bilang ganoon, dapat itong unawain. Bukod sa mga matinding pagtutol na ito, maraming iba pang konsepto ang sumasalungat sa mga teorya ng Divine Command, sa isa o ibang paraan, bahagya o ganap. Maraming mga pilosopo at sosyal na siyentipiko, mula sa klasikal na pilosopiyang Griyego hanggang sa kasalukuyan, halimbawa, ang nagsasabing ang moralidad ay isang konstrak lamang, kaya’t ito ay kultural na relatibo at kultural na natutukoy. Gayunpaman, nagdadala ito ng maraming iba pang talakayan at nagpapataw ng hamon na tukuyin kung ano ang kahulugan ng kultura, kung aling mga elemento ng kultura ang moral na mapagpasya, at sa wakas, ano ang mga hangganan ng naturang relatibidad. Ang mga moral determinist ay nagsasabing ang lahat ng may kaugnayan sa pag-uugali ng tao, kabilang ang moralidad, ay natutukoy, sapagkat ang malayang kalooban ay hindi umiiral. Kamakailan lamang, ipinahayag ng mga modernong palaisip na mayroong mahigpit na agham ng moralidad. Gayunpaman, ang pamamaraang maka-agham lamang, sa kabila ng pagpapaliwanag ng ilang mga katotohanan at ebidensya, ay hindi kayang liwanagan ang buong nilalaman at ganap na kahulugan ng etika. Ang pag-unawa sa moralidad ay nangangailangan ng mas malawak na pananaw, at isang kasunduan sa mga pilosopo, na hindi pa nila kailanman naabot. Ang lahat ng mga tanong na ito ay may iba’t ibang anyo depende sa bawat pilosopikal na pananaw, at nagsisimula ng masalimuot na pagsusuri at walang katapusang mga debate, habang marami sa mga ito ay magkakasalungatan. Ang uniberso at ang atmospera na pumapalibot sa tesis na ito ay ang mga saklaw ng lahat ng mga konseptwal na tunggaliang ito, na sinusuri mula sa isang layunin at ebolusyonaryong pananaw. Sa kabila ng kalagayang ito at ng likas na kahalagahan nito, gayunpaman, ang mga tanong na ito ay malayo sa metodolohikal na paglapit ng isang analitikal na talakayan tungkol sa layunin ng moralidad, na siyang tunay na layunin at saklaw ng gawaing ito. Dapat nating muling balikan ang mga kilalang tradisyunal na teorya dahil ang tesis na ito ay sumisilong sa isang paghahambing na pag-aaral, at ang mga palagay nito ay hindi bababa sa ganap na naiiba mula sa lahat ng tradisyunal na teorya. Samakatuwid, nagiging kinakailangan ang pag-aalok ng direktang at tiyak na mga elemento ng paghahambing sa mambabasa, para sa wastong kritisismo, nang hindi nangangailangan ng mga nakakaantala na pananaliksik. Gayunpaman, kahit na muling binabalikan ang mga tradisyunal na teorya para sa layunin ng paghahambing at kritikal na pagpapahayag, mananatili silang nasa gilid ng ating pangunahing mga alalahanin, bilang “aliena materia.” Sa kabila ng bisa ng alinman o lahat ng mga elemento ng talakayang ito, at ng kanilang kahulugan bilang pilosopikal na uniberso ng tesis na ito, ang layunin ng gawaing ito ay ipakita at bigyang-katwiran ang pag-iral at kahulugan ng mga sinaunang moral na arketipo na lumitaw nang direkta mula sa pinakaunang mga pangangailangang panlipunan at pagsisikap para sa kaligtasan. Ang mga arketipong ito ang kahulugan ng mahalagang pundasyon ng etika, ang pagsasama nito sa kolektibong walang malay at kaukulang lohikong organisasyon at transmisyon sa mga yugto ng ebolusyon ng genome ng tao at iba’t ibang ugnayang espasyo-panahon, anuman ang anumang kontemporaryong karanasan ng mga indibidwal. Ang sistemang tinukoy ng mga arketipong ito ay bumubuo ng isang ebolusyonaryong panlipunang modelo ng tao. Ito ba ay isang metaetikal na posisyon? Oo, ito ay ganoon. Bukod dito, tulad ng sa anumang metaetikal na pangangatwiran, dapat nating maingat na tingnan ang pinakamahusay at lohikal na mga ruta, tulad ng iniaalok ng Analitikal na Pilosopiya. Kaya, ang gawaing ito ay makatwirang dapat ipakita na ang moralidad ay hindi isang produktong kultural ng mga sibilisadong tao o modernong lipunan at na sa kabila ng pagiging nasasaklaw ng ilang kultural na relatibong pagsasama at pagbabawas, ang mga mahalagang pundasyon nito ay arketipal at hindi kailanman nagbago sa estruktura. Ang pangangatwirang ito ay nagpapahiwatig na ang moralidad ay isang orihinal na katangian ng “homo sapiens”; ito ay hindi isang ari-arian o isang aksidente: ito ay bahagi ng kakanyahan ng tao at kabilang sa saklaw ng ontolohikal na pagkakakilanlang pantao. Ang penomenang pantao ay isang tuluy-tuloy na proseso, ginagampanan ang papel nito sa pagitan ng random na pagtukoy at malayang kalooban, at kailangan nating tanungin kung paano nagsimula ang moralidad at paano ito dumating sa atin sa kasalukuyan. (shrink)

In their recent paper, “Practical Knowledge without Luminosity,” Bob Beddor and Carlotta Pavese (2022) claim that the doctrine of essentially intentional actions, or “essentialism,” is false. Essentialism states that some actions are essentially intentional, such that, “whenever they are performed, they are performed intentionally” (2022, p. 926). Beddor and Pavese work to reject essentialism, which figures as a key premise in Juan Piñeros Glasscock’s anti-luminosity argument against the knowledge condition for intentional action (Piñeros Glasscock, p. 1240). Historically, essentialism has received (...) little attention from philosophers since its inception in Elizabeth Anscombe’s Intention (2000, §47). However, I believe that essentially intentional actions can play an important role in an ontology of action. In my paper, I develop and argue for a variety of essentialism in the context of naive action theory, which I call naive essentialism. Naive essentialism is a two-fold thesis, which claims that (1) essentially intentional actions exist, and (2) that essentially intentional actions ground accidentally intentional actions. My paper has four parts. In the first part, I distinguish between essentially and accidentally intentional actions, and unpack the relevant principles of naive action theory. Second, I present the grounding thesis that accidentally intentional actions are grounded in essentially intentional actions. Next, I provide an argument for the existence of essentially intentional actions. Lastly, I briefly respond to a possible objection to my argument. The upshot of my arguments is that essentially intentional actions form the metaphysical and explanatory bedrock in a naive ontology of action, and that there are good reasons for accepting a key premise in Piñeros Glasscock’s anti-luminosity argument. (shrink)

Como começamos a refletir e deliberar sobre nossa conduta moral, colocando-nos no lugar dos outros? Mais especificamente, de que forma gerimos, de maneira arbitrária, nossa conduta a partir de uma perspectiva que prioriza o bem de todos os seres humanos de forma universal? Com o objetivo de responder essa questão, parto da hipótese de que o conceito de razão prática, frequentemente tratado como 'vontade' na Fundamentação da Metafísica dos Costumes de Kant, pode esclarecer o desenvolvimento de nossa capacidade de refletir (...) e gerir autonomamente nossas ações sob uma ótica que coloca todos os indivíduos em condições de igualdade, isto é, sob uma perspectiva universalista. Para atingir esse objetivo, minha investigação se desdobra nas seguintes etapas: (i) analiso o conceito de vontade a partir dos conceitos de dever e de razão prática; (ii) analiso o conceito de autonomia a partir dos conceitos de liberdade e de lei moral; e (iii) sintetizo as duas análises precedentes e abordo com mais detalhes o conceito de Imperativo Categórico no sentido de buscar responder como o conceito de vontade pode nos ajudar a compreender o processo pelo qual passamos a direcionar nossa conduta a partir de uma perspectiva universalista. Concluo que, embora a reflexão autônoma seja o caminho para a liberdade e para uma conduta moral universal, ela ainda pode — e deve — ser socialmente cultivada. (shrink)

I argue we can have subjective practical reasons to perform actions we believe are neither morally required nor a means to satisfy our intrinsic desires. These reasons are grounded in extrinsic desires. Specifically, my claim is that subjective practical reasons can be grounded in desires for signs (i.e., signatory desires), a species of extrinsic desire, together with means-end beliefs. These reasons act like any other subjective practical reason, except when they are trumped, which I argue can happen when they are (...) competition with asubjective practical reasons grounded in intrinsic desire. (shrink)

According to normative pluralists there are no truths about what one ought simpliciter to do, only truths about what one ought to do according to some normative system or stand-point. In contrast with conceptual normative pluralists who argue for this conclusion on the basis that the concept of an ought simpliciter is somehow defective, non-conceptual normative pluralists defend this conclusion on first-order grounds. Non-conceptual normative pluralism has recently received a book-length defence by Mathea Slåttholm Sagdahl. In this article I critique (...) Sagdahl’s defence of non-conceptual normative pluralism. Firstly, I challenge Sagdahl’s attempt to motivate non-conceptual normative pluralism by appealing to Henry Sidgwick’s work on the dualism of practical reason. Secondly, I criticise her response to the most prominent argument against non-conceptual normative pluralism in the philosophical literature, the argument from nominal-notable comparisons. Thirdly, I explore the possibility of a view similar to Sagdahl’s position but which accepts the ought simpliciter. (shrink)

This a review of Alex Worsnip's book 'Fitting Things Together: Coherence and the Demands of Structural Rationality'.

In this dissertation, I investigate the resources for Neo-Aristotelian moral philosophy to address social and ethical issues that arise in the use of technologies that rely on digital environments. The theoretical underpinnings of this dissertation represent efforts from contemporary philosophers to re-engineer the theories of Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle for the present. I offer my own contribution to this tradition in the context of the ethics and philosophy of technology. I aim to answer the following question: what moral and social (...) issues arise in 21st-century digital environments that Neo-Aristotelian philosophy can address? I propose that Neo-Aristotelian philosophy, inspired by the work of Alasdair MacIntyre, is particularly well-suited to addressing the issues in digital environments that users regularly experience. This dissertation contributes to scholarship within Neo-Aristotelian ethics of technology, MacIntyrean approaches to virtue theory, and the ethics of technology more broadly. (shrink)

For each person, some actions are unthinkable: performing them requires crossing a line that one's conscience cannot allow crossing. This article explores what such unthinkability is. In doing so, it introduces a novel categorization of theories of action and practical reason. The article argues that an action is unthinkable if and only if the agent judges that she should never treat any consideration as a reason in favor of performing this action. This view meets two important tests. The first is (...) ‘Failure’: a theory of unthinkable action must allow for the conceptual possibility of doing the unthinkable and explain what is special about the failure implicated in doing the unthinkable, especially in comparison to the failure implicated in akratic action. The second is ‘Incapacity’: a theory of unthinkability must distinguish between not doing something because it is unthinkable and not doing something because of an extremely negative psychological reaction. (shrink)

In this paper, I reply to Ruth Chang’s ‘What is so Hard about Hard Choices’.

Practical reason is the general human capacity for resolving, through reflection, the question of what one is to do. Deliberation of this kind is practical in at least two senses. First, it is practical in its subject matter, insofar as it is concerned with action. But it is also practical in its consequences or its issue, insofar as reflection about action itself directly moves people to act. Our capacity for deliberative self-determination raises two sets of philosophical problems. For one thing, (...) there are questions about how deliberation can succeed in being practical in its issue. What do we need to assume—both about agents and about the processes of reasoning they engage in—to make sense of the fact that deliberative reflection can directly give rise to action? Can we do justice to this dimension of practical reason while preserving the idea that practical deliberation is genuinely a form of reasoning? For another, there are large issues concerning the content of the standards that are brought to bear in practical reasoning. Which norms for the assessment of action are binding on us as deliberating agents? Do these norms provide resources for critical reflection about our ends, or are they exclusively instrumental? Under what conditions do moral norms yield valid standards for reasoning about action? The first set of issues is addressed in sections §§1–3 of the present article, while sections §§4–6 cover the second set of issues. (shrink)

In this essay, I argue that the objections that have been raised against the view that equality is intrinsically valuable also provide objections to the view that all practical reasons can be explained in terms of value. Plausible egalitarian principles entail that under certain conditions people have claims to an equal share. These claims entail reasons to distribute goods equally that cannot be explained by value if equality has no intrinsic value.

This entry is composed of three sections. In §1, we survey debates about what structural rationality is, including the emergence of the concept in the contemporary literature, its key characteristics, its relationship to substantive rationality, its paradigm instances, and the questions of whether these instances are unified and, if so, how. In §2, we turn to the debate about structural requirements of rationality – including controversies about whether they are “wide-scope” or “narrow-scope”, synchronic or diachronic, and whether they govern processes (...) or states; as well as examining various forms of skepticism about structural requirements of rationality. In §3, we turn to the debate about the normative significance of structural rationality, surveying central challenges for the view that structural rationality is normatively significant and the theoretical options that arise in light of these challenges. (shrink)

There is a wide range of things we do out of emotion. For example, we smile with pleasure, our voices drop when we are sad, we recoil in shock or jump for joy, we apologize to others out of remorse. It is uncontroversial that some of these behaviors are actions. Clearly, apologizing is an action if anything is. Things seem less clear in the case of other emotional behaviors. Intuitively, the drop in a sad person’s voice is something that happens (...) to her, rather than something she actively performs. Perhaps more interestingly, even jumping for joy can seem a problematic case: although its execution involves the active performance of certain movements, it has been argued to contrast, e.g., with an act of apology, in that it is not performed in order to achieve some end, such as repairing a relationship. This can make this behavior seem considerably different from paradigm actions. Our central concern in this paper is with which emotional behaviors should be classed as actions and why... (shrink)

On the traditional approach to metaethics, theories are expected to be faithful to ordinary normative discourse—or at worst (if we think the ordinary discourse is metaphysically unsound) to deviate from it as little as possible. This paper develops an alternative, “conceptual engineering” approach to metaethical enquiry, which is not in this way restricted by our present discourse. On this approach, we will seek to understand the psychology, semantics, metaphysics and epistemology, not just of our present concepts, but also of other (...) possible normative concepts. The ultimate point of the enquiry is to choose between the available alternatives: to decide what kinds of normative concepts to use, going forward. The paper aims to make this suggestion precise, in a way that (a) answers worries about circularity, (b) answers worries about “changing the subject”, (c) retains metaethics as a truth-seeking enquiry, and (d) leads to an independently plausible methodology. (shrink)

A précis of Sergio Tenenbaum's Rational Powers in Action (Oxford 2021).

It seems rather intuitive that if I can save either one stranger or five strangers, I must save the five. However, Kantian (and other non-consequentialist) views have a difficult time explaining why this is the case, as they seem committed to what Parfit calls “innumeracy”: roughly, the view that the values of lives (or the reasons to save them) don’t get greater (or stronger) in proportion to the number of lives saved. This chapter first shows that in various cases, it (...) is permissible to save fewer lives, contrary to what is implied by “numerate” views. Then it argues that in the cases in which it is intuitive that we must save the greater number, Kantians (and other deontologists) can not only deliver this verdict but also explain why it is correct, without presupposing that the value of our action depends on “adding up” the values of the lives saved. (shrink)

A response to review essays by Chrisoula Andreou, John Brunero, Matthias Haase, Erasmus Mayr, and Sarah Paul on Sergio Tenenbaum's _Rational Powers in Action_.

I ask you to X. You now have a reason to X. My request gave you a reason. How? One unpopular theory is the epistemic account, according to which requests do not create any new reasons but instead simply reveal information. For instance, my request that you X reveals that I desire that you X, and my desire gives you a reason to X. Peter Schaber has recently attacked both the epistemic account and other theories of the reason-giving force of (...) requests. Schaber defends a new theory of the reason-giving force of requests according to which request give reasons because it is valuable for requesters and requestees that requests have this power. In this paper I argue that Schaber's attack on the epistemic account fails, and that his own theory ought to be rejected because it faces compelling objections. (shrink)

This book is the first to introduce readers to contemporary philosophical works on moral judgement stemming from France, Germany and the Anglo-American world – many of which remain untranslated. By integrating Kantian and Aristotelian reflections on this subject, the author combines historiography and critical reflection to offer a rich picture of what it means to make good moral decisions. As both Kantians and Aristotelians argue, moral judgements are ultimately grounded in the normativity of practical identities. Thus, it is by identifying (...) the obligations tied to the multiple dimensions of our identities (e.g., friend, teacher, romantic partner, citizen) that we can ultimately understand how we ought to act. Yet, Aristotle and Kant also remind us that doing so requires the acquisition of moral virtues which allow us to better discern practical reasons in concrete situations. (shrink)