Noûs 46 (1):24 - 60 (2012)
Agents often face a choice of what to do. And it seems that, in most of these choice situations, the relevant reasons do not require performing some particular act, but instead permit performing any of numerous act alternatives. This is known as the basic belief. Below, I argue that the best explanation for the basic belief is not that the relevant reasons are incommensurable (Raz) or that their justifying strength exceeds the requiring strength of opposing reasons (Gert), but that they are imperfect reasons—reasons that do not support performing any particular act, but instead support choosing any of the numerous alternatives that would each achieve the same worthy end. In the process, I develop and defend a novel theory of objective rationality, arguing that it is superior to its two most notable rivals
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
Engaging Reason: On the Theory of Value and Action.Joseph Raz - 1999 - Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Well-Being: Its Meaning, Measurement, and Moral Importance.James Griffin - 1986 - Clarendon Press.
Oughts, Options, and Actualism.Frank Jackson & Robert Pargetter - 1986 - Philosophical Review 95 (2):233-255.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Requiring and Justifying: Two Dimensions of Normative Strength. [REVIEW]Joshua Gert - 2003 - Erkenntnis 59 (1):5 - 36.
Reasons and Purposes: Human Rationality and the Teleological Explanation of Action.G. F. Schueler - 2003 - Oxford University Press.
A Reason-Based Theory of Rational Choice.Franz Dietrich & Christian List - 2013 - Noûs 47 (1):104-134.
Making Room for Options: Moral Reasons, Imperfect Duties, and Choice.Patricia Greenspan - 2010 - Social Philosophy and Policy 27 (2):181-205.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads104 ( #48,940 of 2,178,181 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #73,143 of 2,178,181 )
How can I increase my downloads?