The dual scale model of weighing reasons

Noûs 56 (2):366-392 (2022)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The metaphor of weighing reasons brings to mind a single (double-pan balance) scale. The reasons for φ go in one pan and the reasons for ~φ go in the other. The relative weights, as indicated by the relative heights of the two pans of the scale, determine the deontic status of φ. This model is simple and intuitive, but it cannot capture what it is to weigh reasons correctly. A reason pushes the φ pan down toward permissibility (has justifying weight) only insofar as it pushes the ~φ pan up toward impermissibility (has requiring weight). Thus, Single Scale is committed to Single Proportion (first pass): all reasons have the same proportion of justifying and requiring weight. Many normative theories reject Single Proportion, and they are not thereby confused about how to weigh reasons. One can be mistaken about the weight of a reason without being confused about how reasons are to be weighed. Single Scale is problematic, not because it appeals to the image of a scale, but because it appeals to the image of a single scale. We need two scales to capture what it is to weigh reasons correctly.

Similar books and articles

weighing reasons.Garrett Cullity - 2019 - In Daniel Star (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Reasons and Normativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Reasons for and reasons against.Justin Snedegar - 2018 - Philosophical Studies 175 (3):725-743.
Reasons Have no Weight.Dalia Drai - 2018 - Philosophical Quarterly 68 (270):60-76.
Competing Reasons.Justin Snedegar - forthcoming - In Jessica Brown & Mona Simion (eds.), Reasons, Justification, and Defeat. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Weighing pragmatic and evidential reasons for belief.Andrew Reisner - 2008 - Philosophical Studies 138 (1):17 - 27.
Weighing Reasons.Errol Lord & Barry Maguire (eds.) - 2016 - New York, NY: Oxford University Press USA.
Normative metaphysics for accountants.Barry Maguire & Justin Snedegar - 2021 - Philosophical Studies 178 (2):363-384.
Still waiting for a plausible Humean theory of reasons.Nicholas Shackel - 2014 - Philosophical Studies 167 (3):607-633.
Reasons.Giorgio Bongiovanni - 2018 - In Colin Aitken, Amalia Amaya, Kevin D. Ashley, Carla Bagnoli, Giorgio Bongiovanni, Bartosz Brożek, Cristiano Castelfranchi, Samuele Chilovi, Marcello Di Bello, Jaap Hage, Kenneth Einar Himma, Lewis A. Kornhauser, Emiliano Lorini, Fabrizio Macagno, Andrei Marmor, J. J. Moreso, Veronica Rodriguez-Blanco, Antonino Rotolo, Giovanni Sartor, Burkhard Schafer, Chiara Valentini, Bart Verheij, Douglas Walton & Wojciech Załuski (eds.), Handbook of Legal Reasoning and Argumentation. Springer Verlag. pp. 3-33.
Reasons, Competition, and Latitude.Justin Snedegar - forthcoming - In Russ Shafer-Landau (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaethics, Volume 16. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Reasons, Reason, and Context.Daniel Fogal - 2016 - In Errol Lord & Barry Maguire (eds.), Weighing Reasons. Oxford University Press.
Bearing the Weight of Reasons.Stephen Kearns - 2016 - In Barry Maguire & Errol Lord (eds.), Weighing Reasons. New York, USA: Oxford University Press. pp. 173-190.
Normative Weighing and Legal Guidance of Conduct.Noam Gur - 2012 - Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 25 (2):359-391.

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-12-17

Downloads
426 (#26,094)

6 months
92 (#9,780)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Chris Tucker
William & Mary

Citations of this work

A Holist Balance Scale.Chris Tucker - forthcoming - Journal of the American Philosophical Association:1-21.

Add more citations

References found in this work

How to define theoretical terms.David Lewis - 1970 - Journal of Philosophy 67 (13):427-446.
Practical Reason and Norms.Joseph Raz - 1975 - Law and Philosophy 12 (3):329-343.
God meets Satan’s Apple: the paradox of creation.Rubio Daniel - 2018 - Philosophical Studies 175 (12):2987-3004.

View all 16 references / Add more references