Cham: Palgrave MacMillan (2018)

Authors
Gerald K. Harrison
Massey University
Abstract This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)
Keywords Normative reasons  theism  practical reasons  epistemic reasons  moral reasons  reasons  metaethics  evolutionary debunking arguments  divine command theory  metanormative
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s) 3030081036   978-3-319-90796-3   978-3-319-90795-6
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 54,536
External links

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
Chapters BETA
A Miscellany of Objections

I consider a wide variety of objections, including concerns about regresses, authority, ontological extravagance, and supposed threats to normative theorizing. In all cases the objections are shown either to be misguided or question begging.

Predictions

The divine psychologism defended in this work can be used to make a large number of predictions about the character of the normative aspect to reality. For instance—and without making any substantial normative assumptions—it is possible to predict the existence of epistemic, instrumental and moral r... see more

Euthyphro

Euthyphro-style objections to divine analyses of normative concepts are thought by most contemporary philosophers to refute them. Nothing could be further from the truth. Such objections—and I identify four distinct ones—fail to raise any reasonable doubt about the truth of the view defended in this... see more

Mente Divina

Our faculties of reason are not faculties of perception. They are best characterized as kinds of instruction manual on reality that provide us, via rational intuitions, with indirect information about what Reason favours us doing and being. As normative reasons exist indubitably, and as we are indub... see more

Externality

There is no evidence that the favoring relations constitutive of normative reasons have oneself as their source. Indeed, the thesis is preposterous once the truth of the unity thesis is acknowledged. All of the evidence—and I provide four pieces —strongly implies that normative reasons have an exter... see more

Unity

The favoring relations constitutive of normative reasons have a single, unifying source across us all. This is implied by at least five separate considerations. Both normative disagreement and normative conflict implies that our concept of a normative reason is of a favoring relation that has the sa... see more

Mentality

All favoring relations must have a mind as their bearer. The idea of a favoring attitude being borne by something non-mental is incoherent, as is the idea of a favoring attitude that lacks any bearer at all. As all normative reasons are favoring relations, then all normative reasons must have a mind... see more

Normativity

To judge that one has reason to do or believe something is not to judge that one is doing or believing it; nor is it to predict that one will do or believe it; nor is it to judge that one is motivated to do or believe it; nor is it to judge that one is subject to some kind of force or pressure; nor ... see more

The Question

The question is “what are normative reasons, in and of themselves?” The answer is going to be that they are the attitudes a single external mind—a god of sorts—is adopting towards us doing and believing things. However, it is emphasized that what follows is not an attempt to provide rational underpi... see more

Conclusion

I summarize the main argument developed in this work and the fifteen arguments I gave in support of its premises. I go on to describe how the contemporary debate can be said to be characterized by some classic symptoms of normative autism or mind-blindness, ranging from a failure to register the men... see more

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Motivating Reason to Slow the Factive Turn in Epistemology.J. Drake - forthcoming - In Veli Mitova (ed.), The Factive Turn in Epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1-22.
Epistemic Reasons I: Normativity.Kurt Sylvan - 2016 - Philosophy Compass 11 (7):364-376.
What Are Epistemic Reasons?Gerald K. Harrison - 2017 - Philosophia Christi 19 (1):23-36.
Converging on Values.Donald C. Hubin - 1999 - Analysis 59 (4):355–361.
Contrastive Reasons.Justin Snedegar - 2017 - Oxford University Press.
Rational Internalism.Samuel Asarnow - 2016 - Ethics 127 (1):147-178.
Epistemic Deism and Probabilistic Theism.Darek Łukasiewicz - 2018 - European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 10 (1):129-140.
Being More Realistic About Reasons: On Rationality and Reasons Perspectivism.Clayton Littlejohn - 2019 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 99 (3):605-627.
Reasons, Reason, and Context.Daniel Fogal - 2016 - In Errol Lord & Barry Maguire (eds.), Weighing Reasons. Oxford University Press.
Acting and Believing Under the Guise of Normative Reasons.Keshav Singh - 2019 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 99 (2):409-430.
How Reasons Are Sensitive to Available Evidence.Benjamin Kiesewetter - 2018 - In Conor McHugh, Jonathan Way & Daniel Whiting (eds.), Normativity: Epistemic and Practical. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 90-114.
An Essay on the Desire-Based Reasons Model.Attila Tanyi - 2006 - Dissertation, Central European University
Reducing Reasons.Matthew Silverstein - 2016 - Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 10 (1):1-22.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-07-09

Total views
39 ( #253,720 of 2,385,582 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #206,993 of 2,385,582 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes