No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Practical Reason and the Possibility of Error
Abstract
Philosophy
... 17 The most detailed presentation of this argument is in Korsgaard (1997). 18 See Lavin (2004). 19 See e.g. ...
Since the 1990s, meta-ethical constructivism has established itself as a serious contender in debates about the nature and sources of practical normativity. Roughly, constructivism’s core idea is that practical normativity or normative reasons neither exist independently of what we think and do, nor in virtue of the fact that we want and intend things, but because we engage in some distinctive sort of activity. How exactly to characterize that activity, and how to distinguish constructivism from its main rivals, are, however, contested issues. In this paper, I will suggest that constructivism in meta-ethics is best understood as explaining practical reasons through the possession and habitual exercise of the capacity of practical reason. This characterization offers a neat way of understanding what is at issue between constructivism and its rivals, realism and subjectivism, as well as the differences between important varieties of constructivism. It also promises to help resolve some important problems critics have pointed out for constructivism.
... 16 Tolley (2006: 375). See also Lavin (2004). On Kant's view, human beings suffer from a "temptation to judge" (A709/B737) even when they are "not in a position […] to cognize something as true or as false" (BL 24:143; cf. ...
In this paper I engage with a recent debate vis-à-vis Kant's conception of logic, which deals with whether Kant saw logical laws as normative for, or rather as constitutive of, the faculty of understanding. On the former view, they provide norms for the correct exercise of the understanding; on the latter, they define the necessary structure of the faculty of understanding per se. I claim that these two positions are not mutually exclusive, as Kant held both a normative and a constitutive conception of logic. I also aim to sketch a parallelism between Kant's conceptions of logic and of ethics: Kant's twofold conception of logic parallels his view of moral laws as normative (for the human will) but constitutive (of a holy will).
... My commandments do conflict with several popular principles about rules. Many philosophers claim that violability is essential to a rule (Lavin 2004). My only concession is that the rule be capable of apparent violation. ...
Commanders gain authority from obedience and lose authority from disobedience. We should expect commanders to therefore devise commands that reduce the probability of disobedience. To aid recognition of these techniques for reducing the risk of disobedience, I focus on the extreme of case of commands that reduce the probability to zero. Each of my ten commandments illustrates a logical technique for engineering out disobedience. Once you master these safety measures, you can confidently legislate your own universal maxims. Your innovations will be good news for Immanuel Kant’s characterization of morality in terms of categorical imperatives. The commandments also raise interesting questions about responsibility for necessities and the nature of rule following.
... 30. This reading of Kant, which is consistent with denying the possibility of "true irrationality", has been suggested (in passing) by Lavin (2004). Lavin refers to the following sentence as favoring the possibility of true irrationality: "[imperatives] say that to do or to omit something would be good, but they say it to a will that does not always do something just because it is represented to it that it would be good to do it" (4:413), which seems to suggest that, when applied to hypothetical imperatives, you can fail to will the means even when you know that it is good for the end you will. ...
... On this account, practical reasoning is taken to be a power that can settle what counts as a reason for action and the aim of practical reasoning is to settle what counts as a good reason. 6 Lavin (2004) has an excellent discussion of the ways in which Kantian constitutivism canand cannotallow for error. Korsgaard discusses defective actionactions that fail to meet the standards of practical rationalityin chapter 8 of Self-Constitution. ...
My focus in this paper is on a type of bad actions, namely actions that appear to be done for reasons that are not good reasons. I take such bad actions to be ubiquitous. But their ubiquity gives rise to a puzzle, especially if we assume that intentional actions are performed for what one believes or takes to be good reasons. The puzzle I aim to solve in this paper is: why do we seem to be getting it wrong so much of the time? I will argue that we can explain the ubiquity of bad action in light of the practical uncertainties that we face. My claim is not just that the more uncertainty we face as agents, the more likely we are to make a mistake about what counts as a good reason for action, although that is certainly one possible effect of practical uncertainty. My main claim is, rather, that practical uncertainty can have an impact on what counts as acting for a good reason for the agent.
... 14 See Zimmerman (1996) and Haji (2002) for a defense of that condition. A related condition is what philosophers such as Lavin (2004) call the error constraint on normativity. As Lavin puts it: "an agent is subject to a principle only if the agent can go wrong in respect of it" (2004, p. 425). ...
According to epistemic deontologism, attributions of epistemic justification are deontic claims about what we ought to believe. One of the most prominent objections to this conception, due mainly to William P. Alston (1988), is that the principle that 'ought' implies 'can' (OIC) rules out deontologism because our beliefs are not under our voluntary control. In this paper, I offer a partial defense of Alston's critique of deontologism. While Alston is right that OIC rules out epistemic deontologism, appealing to doxastic involuntarism is not necessary for generating that tension. Deontologists would still have a problem with OIC if doxastic voluntarism turned out to be true or if deontologism did not require voluntarism. This is because, in short, epistemic justification does not imply 'can'. If, as deontologists maintain, epistemic justification implies 'oughts', then epistemic justification must also imply 'can' given OIC. But since epistemic justification does not imply 'can', OIC dictates that we reject deontologism. I end by exploring the possible consequences of this incompatibility between OIC and deontologism. My conclusion is that at least one of the following claims must be true. Either (i) 'ought' does not imply 'can', (ii) attributions of epistemic justification are not deontic claims, or (iii) epistemic claims lack categorical normative authority.
... The most thorough discussion of the link between reasoning and fallibility is Lavin's (2004). Lavin helpfully documents very widespread acceptance for different versions of the claim that there is an error constraint on reasoning, rationality, and being subject to norms or principles. ...
There is widespread disagreement about whether epistemic akrasia is possible. This paper argues that the possibility of epistemic akrasia follows from a traditional rationalist conception of epistemic critical reasoning, together with considerations about the fallibility of our capacities for reasoning. In addition to defending the view that epistemic akrasia is possible, we aim to shed light on why it is possible. By focusing on critical epistemic reasoning, we show how traditional rationalist assumptions about our core cognitive capacities help to explain the possibility of epistemic akrasia.
This paper argues that God plausibly has facts of self that function as modifiers of the normative reasons that apply to him. Facts of self are subjective facts like the fact that one has certain commitments, the fact that one has a certain character, the fact that one has a certain practical identity, the fact that one has certain projects. There is a widespread intuition (the normative significance of self) that facts of self influence what an agent’s sufficient reasons are. While this intuition is widespread in ethics, its implications for God’s practical life have received little scholarly attention. Facts of God’s self have, however, received some attention in the context of what I call the divine mechanism complaint, but their normative roles have been undertheorized. The divine mechanism complaint is that on certain conceptions of God’s relation to reasons, God is objectionably mechanical. I take this complaint as requiring that God have some influence on what his sufficient reasons are. An adequate account of the normative significance of God’s self, then, can answer the divine mechanism complaint, providing us with a plausible picture of God’s practical life. I provide such an account, arguing that God need not be objectionably mechanical if his facts of self function as modifiers of his normative reasons.
In Kantian ethics, do we wrong someone when our use of them requires that they violate a duty to self, even when they have consented to that use? In this paper, I answer this question in the negative. Consent that constitutes a violation of a duty to self is impermissible yet normatively transformative. But it also matters how consent was obtained. For example, it matters whether consent is solicited or unsolicited, whether our action amounts to complicity with the violation, and how the act of consent is shaped by the broader contours of the relationship the parties stand in to each other. In Kantian terms, we might fail in our duties of respect to others even when our interactions with them are consensual. So many, but not all, consensual interactions in which one person violates a duty to self are also instances in which they are interpersonally wronged.
According to a broad historical and contemporary consensus, ideology resides in the mind, as a sort of belief system gone wrong. Recently, however, a minority view has challenged this cognitivist consensus by highlighting ideology’s social function. This group of authors, including Rahel Jaeggi, Karen Ng, Robin Celikates, and Sally Haslanger, underline the importance of analyzing ideology through the lens of our social practices. We think these challengers move the conversation about ideology in the right direction, but their views still suffer from some weaknesses – weaknesses that we think an existential-phenomenological account of ideology can overcome. We develop such an account here. We conceive of ideology as a set of modes of being-with that attack our normative competence by placing us under unwarranted normative pressure, changing our normative stance to benefit some political group. We offer a four-fold account of normative competence and illustrate how ideology, understood in our terms, attacks it. Finally, we show that our approach shares the strengths but not the weaknesses of the minority view.
Realists about group agency, according to whom corporate agents may have mental states and perform actions over and above those of their individual members, think that individual agents may switch between participating in individual and corporate agency. My aim is, however, to argue that the inescapability of individual agency spells out a difficulty for this kind of switching – and, therefore, for realism about corporate agency. To do so, I develop Korsgaard's notion of plight inescapability. On my take, it suggests that individual agents are continuously faced with fully exercising their own individual agency (absent external limits at the time of its exercise). But then individual agents may not switch to acting as members of corporate agents, in the sense of taking on irreducible mental states that differ from their own. As it nevertheless is possible to participate fully in the action of a corporate entity, this incompatibility between individual and corporate mental states suggests a challenge for group agent realism.
All human societies are permeated by collectively shared entities that govern daily social interactions and promote coordination and cooperation: norms. While the study of norm development is not new to developmental psychology, it has only recently been the target of an interdisciplinary wave of research using new methodologies and (often) complementary theoretical accounts to describe and explain the origins and potentially species-unique aspects of human norm psychology. Here we review recent developmental research showing that young children swiftly acquire and infer norms in a variety of social contexts. Moreover, children actively enforce these norms, even as unaffected bystanders, when third parties do things the wrong way. This research suggests that the foundations of human norm psychology can be found in early childhood. Deeper insights into the ontogenetic roots of norm psychology may contribute to understanding the evolutionary emergence of human cooperation and its maintenance in the contemporary world.
Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Developmental Psychology, Volume 5 is December 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
Agency often consists in performing actions and engaging in activities that are successful. We pour glasses, catch objects, carry things, recite poems, and play instruments. It has therefore seemed tempting in recent philosophical thinking to conceptualise the relationship between our agentive abilities and our successes as follows: (Success) S is exercising their ability to ϕ only if S successfully ϕ-s. This paper argues that (Success) is false based on the observation that agency also often consists in making mistakes. We bungle things. We spill water, we miss objects thrown at us, we drop things, misremember lines, and mess up songs. I argue that these mistakes, doings that fall short of being a φ-ing, can only be understood as subpar exercises of the ability to φ. Since this understanding is incompatible with (Success), the thesis should be given up.
Do artists have control over their ideas for new artworks? This is often treated as a question about spontaneity, or the experience of control: does the event of having an idea for a new artwork occur unexpectedly and without foresight? I suggest another way of interpreting the question—one that has mostly been neglected by philosophers, and that is not settled by claims about spontaneity. According to that interpretation, the question is about agency: are the events of having ideas for new artworks exercises of mental agency? I argue that the answer is no. I apply the results of this argument to questions about what is and is not intentional in the creative process. I conclude by examining another type of control artists might exercise over their creative mental events, which I call ‘facilitation’.
In this paper, I analyse the nature of a particular form of theoretical reasoning—ratiocination. Ratiocination is purposeful, self-conscious, deliberatively controlled reasoning. I will argue that ratiocination concludes when the ratiocinator believes that she ought to believe p. In Section 1, I suggest that the way a reasoner’s mind moves in ratiocination is different from the way her mind moves in non-ratiocinative reasoning. Such a difference should motivate an analysis that focuses just on ratiocination. In Section 2, I provide a general characterisation of ratiocination and distinguish it from non-ratiocinative reasoning. I draw a distinction between non-deliberative rational control and deliberative rational control. I then argue that the ratiocinator always exercises the latter. Since theoretical reasoning is a norm-governed activity and since ratiocination involves deliberatively controlled reasoning, the ratiocinator necessarily tries to control her mental movements in a way that is in line with the normative requirements of this activity. In Section 3, I argue that ratiocination ends when the ratiocinator believes that she ought to believe p. I further explain the nature of the ‘ought’ in the ratiocinator’s belief that she ought to believe p. In Section 4, I address possible objections to the account on offer and explain why my account does not undermine our general understanding of the nature of theoretical reasoning. I explain that my claim is compatible with the claim that reasons to be rational are transparent to reasons to believe p. I also discuss why the ratiocinator’s belief that she ought to believe p is not an intermediate stage in ratiocination. Finally, I argue that ratiocination, as described, is compatible with the claim that belief is truth-governed.
Most error theorists want to accept hypothetical reasons but not moral reasons. They do so by arguing that there is no queerness in hypothetical reasons. They can be reduced to purely descriptive claims, about either standards or ordinary standard-independent facts: when I say “I have a reason to take this flight, ” all I say is that “according to certain standards of reasoning, I have a reason to take this flight” or that “I have a desire such that taking this flight is the only way of doing so.” Error theorists who want to accept hypothetical reasons but not moral reasons think that one of these approaches works for hypothetical reasons but neither work for moral reasons. I shall argue that whatever arguments are given for rejecting these approaches in the case of moral reasons are also arguments for rejecting them in the case of hypothetical reasons.
Ethical constructivism holds that truths about the relation between rationality, morality, and agency are best understood as constructed by correct reasoning, rather than discovered or invented. Unlike other metaphors used in metaethics, construction brings to light the generative and dynamic dimension of practical reason. On the resultant picture, practical reasoning is not only productive but also self-transforming, and socially empowering. The main task of this volume is to illustrate how constructivism has substantially modified and expanded the agenda of metaethics by refocusing on rational agency and its constitutive principles. In particular, this volume identifies, compares and discusses the prospects and failures of the main strands of constructivism regarding the powers of reason in responding to the challenges of contingency. While Kantian, Humean, Aristotelian, and Hegelian theories sharply differ in their constructivist strategies, they provide compelling accounts of the rational articulation required for an inclusive and unified ethical community.
How does human agency relate to the good? According to a thesis with ancient pedigree, the connection is very tight. Known as “the Guise of the Good” (GG), it states that human action or motivation to act, of some special kind or another, is only possible insofar as the agent performs or is motivated to perform the act because of the good she sees in so acting. But how might agents see their actions as good? Recent research in moral psychology, the philosophy of mind, and the cognitive sciences suggests that affective states may play a deep role in cognition and action as representations of value: for instance, pain may represent an injury as bad for one. This dissertation begins by defending just such an evaluationist account of unpleasant pain from an objection, and then develops and defends an affect-based version of GG. The first part of the dissertation (Chapter 2) considers a foundational problem for an evaluationist theory of affect. The theory is motivated by its ability to make sense of our aversive intentional responses to pain as responses to value, but the shooting the messenger objection charges that it is unable to make sense of our aversive behavior to the sensations themselves. I propose a solution to this problem on behalf of the evaluationist: when we introspect our pains we also turn our emotional distress inwards, enabling it to represent our pains as bad. One crucial question GG theorists must face is just what the good of GG is. Chapter 3 argues that, lest the thesis be too weak, it must hold that actions must appear to their agents to meet a standard of practical reason. The chapter then shows how the intelligibility motivation for GG can lead naturally to the view that the standards so presented are shared publicly. Chapter 4 argues against the standard understanding of GG in terms of essentially evaluative desires and contends that it should be replaced by hard-line affectivism, the view that GG is true because actions are based on affective states that represent there as being reason for those actions.
What is offered in this paper is the foundation upon which a catechesis on evil and sin can be developed and an underpinning for a substantial catechetical approach that is both philosophically sound and theologically relevant. In so doing, this paper will examine the philosophic problem of evil and seek to identify the metaphysical nature of the concept of evil along with the resultant ethical implications in terms of sin. Although the work will provide a groundwork and frame for theodicy and a philosophical basis for subsequent religious dogmatics relational to response to absolute otherness, whether it be in the form of God or other metaphysical truth claims of origin; the aim of the work is to provide a metaphysical understanding of evil and an approach to teaching the ethical concerns of evil’s instantiation in terms of transgression. As Maritain clarifies, evil and sin enter creation in the difference between God’s primordial or antecedent will and His consequent or conditional will. It is the difference between what God intends and what God permits. Consequently, it must form the fundamental basis of any catechism on evil and sin. This work, therefore, will look to develop an understanding of evil in terms of its non-existence and its existence. For this reason, Thomas Aquinas is presented as the systematic philosopher in whom these two forms of understanding are articulated and organised in a fundamental way.
This thesis is concerned with self-ascriptive belief. I argue that one’s lower-order belief can be fixed from the reflective level. One reasons about whether p is the case and it is on the basis of one’s endorsement of p that one comes to believe p. I argue that one’s self-ascriptive belief can also be fixed from the reflective level. One reasons about whether p is the case and it is on the basis of one’s endorsement of p that one comes to self-ascribe the belief p. I further suggest that it is possible for the reflective way of fixing lower-order belief to fail but the reflective way of fixing self-ascriptive belief to succeed. When this happens, one is in a state of believing that she believes p when in fact one does not believe p. This suggests that the state of believing that one believes p and the state of believing p are distinct states and that the state of believing that one believes p does not necessitate the state of believing p. It also raises a sceptical worry about whether one’s self-ascriptive belief amounts to knowledge. In Chapter 1, I situate my discussions in the existing literature, focusing on the constitutive view of self-ascriptive belief. In Chapter 2, I use an everyday case in which a subject self-ascribes the belief that p and is later surprised that p to motivate the possibility that there are different levels at which beliefs are fixed. In Chapter 3, I develop an account of ratiocination and argue that the conclusion of ratiocination is in the form of I ought to believe p. Hence, at the end of ratiocination, one is in a state of believing that I ought to believe p. In Chapter 3, I discuss how one’s belief that I ought to believe p initiates a top-down fixation of the corresponding lower-order belief. I also discuss why it is possible for the top-down fixation process of a rational subject to terminate before it fixes the lower-order belief. In Chapter 4, I discuss the transparency account of self-knowledge. I first criticise the transparency account’s claim that a rational subject’s endorsing p necessarily leads to believing p. Someone who ratiocinates and concludes that p but does not believe p because the top-down fixation process terminates early is an example of how a rational subject can endorse p without believing p. I then draw on the transparency account to argue that from a rational subject’s first-person perspective, if she self-ascribes a belief to herself and if she endorses that p, she will self-ascribe the belief that p. If this is right, then one can self-ascribe the belief that p because one endorses p but in fact does not believe p because one’s endorsement fails to fix the lower-order belief. In Chapter 5, I return to the constitutive account, explaining why its central claim should be rejected. I also reject the incorrigibility thesis, which holds that a self-ascriptive belief that p entails the lower-order belief that p. Finally, I raise a number of puzzles concerning the epistemic status of self-ascriptive belief.
This second chapter of Interpreting Kant in Education continues to contrast different interpretations of some of Kant's key terms. Kant makes many distinctions in formulating his view, most notably between spontaneity and intuition, sensibility and the understanding, things in themselves and appearances, and receptive and spontaneous knowledge. In educational theory such distinctions are typically read as dualisms, which is to say that sensibility and the understanding are understood as separate entities (getting together to produce knowledge), and appearance and thing in itself read as ontologically distinct objects. It is argued that these distinctions can be understood in a quite different way. This chapter starts by looking at Kant's conception of experience and then introduces some distinct understandings of the terms, drawn from contemporary readings and commentary on Kant. These understandings of his central concepts will be revisited and elaborated through the chapters, making for an overall picture that contrasts with the widespread ‘Kantian’ one in education.
The main aim of this paper is to identify a type of fact-given warrant for action that is distinct from reason-based justification for action and defend the view that there are two types of practical warrant. The idea that there are two types of warrant is familiar in epistemology, but has not received much attention in debates on practical normativity. On the view that I will defend, normative facts, qua facts, give rise to entitlement warrant for action. But they do not, qua facts, give rise to reason-based warrant. Normative practical reasons, I will argue, are true propositions that represent fact-based favouring and that are made true by normative facts.
In this paper, I argue that genuine ethical deliberation, and hence ethical agency, is incompatible in principle with the possession of determinate practical prescriptions concerning how best to act in a concrete ethical situation. I make this argument principally by way of an analogy between gameplay and ethical deliberation. I argue that trivially solved games of perfect information (the example I use is tic-tac-toe) are, or become, in some sense unplayable for the individual for whom the game is trivially solved. The reason for this, I suggest, is that there ceases to be space within the game for the distinction between that individual being a better and being a worse player of the game. I then use this example as an occasion to reflect on the kind of epistemic indeterminacy that appears to be a condition of genuine ethical deliberation.
The premise that it is logically necessary for a necessary condition of value to be valuable is sometimes used in metaethics in support of the claim that agency, or some constitutive condition of agency or action, has value for all agents. I focus on the most recent application of this premise by Caroline T. Arruda and argue that the premise is false. Despite this defect the relevant evaluative step could still work just in case of agency if an additional condition were satisfied.
Moral constitutivism purports to explain moral normativity by appeal to the nature of either agency or rational powers. Ambitious constitutivism aspires to ground the categorical authority of morality and to derive the content of the basic moral norms while avoiding the problems of moral realism. As a general strategy, moral constitutivism faces three serious challenges. First, the shmagency challenge. The worry is that the authority of the norms derived from the nature of agency is only conditional on having a reason to be an agent rather than some other kind of subject, a shmagent or an alienated agent. Constitutivists usually reply by appealing to the inescapability of agency. Second, there is a worry that agency is too thin a basis for the derivation of the substantive content of moral norms. Finally, there is the worry that constitutivism might be unable to make room for bad actions. The entry considers possible responses by moral constitutivism to these concerns and whether, if these responses are unsatisfactory, moral constitutivism might still have some explanatory power but of a less ambitious sort.
An influential argument against the possibility of obligations to oneself states that the very notion of such obligations is incoherent: If there were such obligations, we could release ourselves from them; yet releasing oneself from an obligation is impossible. I challenge this argument by arguing against the premise that it is impossible to release oneself from an obligation. I point out that this premise assumes that if it were possible to release oneself from an obligation, it would be impossible to violate that obligation. I note that there are two interpretations of this assumption, one conceptual and one psychological. I argue that, on both interpretations, the assumption is false—at least according to independently plausible accounts of obligations to oneself and of what it means to waive an obligation. My arguments paint a picture of obligations to oneself that not only challenges the argument against their interference, but also illuminates these obligations’ relationship to other parts of the moral domain.
On Chang's voluntarist account of commitments, when we commit to φ, we employ the 'normative powers' of our will to give ourselves a reason to φ that we would otherwise not have had. I argue that Chang's account, by itself, does not have sufficient conceptual resources to reconcile the normative significance of commitments with their alleged fundamentally volitional character. I suggest an alternative, second-personal account of commitment, which avoids this problem. On this account, the volitional act involved in committing is one of holding ourselves accountable, thus putting us under to a pro tanto obligation to ourselves. The second-personal account implies that there is an interesting link between commitment and morality.
The possibility of error conditions the possibility of normative principles. I argue that extant interpretations of this condition undermine the possibility of normative principles for our action because they implicitly treat error as a perfection of an action. I then explain how a constitutivist metaphysics of capacities explains why error is an imperfection of an action. Finally, I describe and defend the interpretation of the error condition which follows.
Constitutivism is a family of theories of normativity, especially in metaethics, that rely on the concept of constitutive norms: norms that are grounded in constitutive features of the kind of thing to which they apply. In this paper, I present two conditions that any constitutivism must meet in its account of constitutive norms, if it is to remain true to its motivations: the constitutivity and broad normativity conditions. I argue that all extant accounts of constitutive norms fail to meet these conditions due to making constitutive norms either inviolable or in need of some external ground of normativity. I then propose a new account of constitutive norms that is better fitted to meet these conditions. This account relies on an analysis of constitutive norms in terms of a specific kind of generic generalization, the “generic proposition”. I explain how norms of this form can be constitutive of a kind, while also allowing for violability.
Constitutivists have tried to answer Enoch’s “schmagency” objection by arguing that Enoch fails to appreciate the inescapability of agency. Although these arguments are effective against some versions of the objection, I argue that they leave constitutivism vulnerable to an important worry; namely, that constitutivism leaves us alienated from the moral norms that it claims we must follow. In the first part of the paper, I try to make this vague concern more precise: in a nutshell, it seems that constitutivism cannot provide an adequate account of the relation between the constitutive norms of agency and the particular ends the agent pursues. I then provide a broad outline of an interpretation of Kant’s formalism that is immune to this objection. I conclude that constitutivism is best understood as the upshot of a formalist view of categorical practical principles.
Immanuel Kant is one of the most influential thinkers of modern philosophy but he receives some fierce criticisms by theorists of education - mostly for intellectualism, a disconnect between mind and reality, and a ‘detached’ mind making and imposing meaning. This thesis challenges the typical ‘Kantian’ picture that is widespread in education, suggesting that some deep-seated assumptions about mind and world rooted in empiricist epistemology have shaped interpretations. Drawing on contemporary literature from philosophy of mind and epistemology, it argues that Kant can be read in quite a different way - as non-dualist, with mind as embodied and his subject responsive and sensitive to context. In the increasingly ‘standards’ culture in education, in which knowledge is too readily seen as a commodity, Kant’s first person ‘capacity’ view, with judgement at its core, offers a way to think about knowledge that has more in common with Aristotle than the dominant paradigms in education of empiricism and constructivism. Kant’s epistemology when read through a non-dualist lens offers rich conceptions of knowledge, mind and cognition that, due to the prevalence of the conventional ‘Kantian’ picture, have yet to be appreciated in educational thought.
According to a subjectivist theory, normative reasons are grounded in facts about our desires. According to an instrumentalist theory, reasons are grounded also in facts about the relevant means to desired objects. These are distinct theories. The widespread tendency to conflate the normativity of subjective and instrumentalist precepts obscures two facts. First, instrumentalist precepts incorporate a subjective element with an objective one. Second, combining these elements into a single theory of normative reasons requires explaining how and why they are to be combined. I argue that the most plausible justification for combining the two elements—which appeals to a theory of well‐being—exposes the inadequacy of the instrumentalist theory: The grounds required to justify the instrumentalist combination are also grounds for the normativity of prudential precepts and with them practical reasons that may have no internal connection to an agent's conative, motivational states.
Constitutivist accounts in metaethics explain the normative standards in a domain by appealing to the constitutive features of its members. The success of these accounts turns on whether they can explain the connection between normative standards and the nature of individuals they authoritatively govern. Many such explanations presuppose that any member of a norm-governed kind must minimally satisfy the norms governing its kind. I call this the Threshold Commitment, and argue that constitutivists should reject it. First, it requires constitutivists to restrict the scope of their explanatory ambitions, because it is not plausibly true of social kinds. Second, despite the frequent reliance on physical artifacts in constitutivists’ illustrations of the Threshold Commitment, it counter-intuitively entails that physical artifacts can cease to exist without being physically destroyed. Third, it misconstrues the normative force of authoritative norms on very defective kind-members because it locates this force not in the norm, but in the threat of non-existence. Fortunately, constitutivism can be decoupled from the Threshold Commitment, and I close by sketching a promising alternative account.
In his writings on moral philosophy, Bishop Joseph Butler adopts an identifiably “constitutivist” strategy because he seeks to ground normativity in features of agency. Butler's constitutivist strategy deserves our attention both because he is an influential precursor to much modern moral philosophy and because it sheds light on current debates about constitutivism. For example, Butler's approach can easily satisfy the “error constraint” that is often thought to derail modern constitutivist approaches. It does this by defining actions relative to the kind of being who performs them, instead of relative to the circumstances of their performance. This gives Butler a conceptually stable account of something that is both fully an action yet morally bad, for which an agent might be held morally responsible. Should modern constitutivists wish to model their views on Butler's in order to satisfy the error constraint, they need not adopt all his theological and other commitments, but they will have to avoid the currently popular constitutivist strategy of deriving normative force from the inescapability of a given principle.
Neo-Kantian accounts which try to ground morality in the necessary requirements of agency face the problem of “bad action”. The most prominent example is Christine Korsgaard’s version of constitutivism that considers the categorical imperative to be indispensable for an agent’s self-constitution. In my paper I will argue that a constitutive account can solve the problem of bad action by applying the distinction between constitutive and regulative rules to the categorical imperative. The result is that an autonomous agent can violate the categorical imperative in so far as it amounts to a regulative rule of morality; however, an agent cannot call into question the categorical imperative as a constitutive rule of the practice of morality without losing her or his identity as a moral agent. The paper then compares this approach to bad action with the one Korsgaard provides and outlines also a new way of grounding the categorical imperative.
According to the Reasoning View about normative reasons, facts about normative reasons for action can be understood in terms of facts about the norms of practical reasoning. I argue that this view is subject to an overlooked class of counterexamples, familiar from debates about Subjectivist theories of normative reasons. Strikingly, the standard strategy Subjectivists have used to respond to this problem cannot be adapted to the Reasoning View. I think there is a solution to this problem, however. I argue that the norms of practical reasoning, like the norms of theoretical reasoning, are characteristically defeasible, in a sense I make precise. Recognizing this property of those norms makes space for a solution to the problem. The resulting view is in a way analogous to the familiar defeasibility theory of knowledge, but it avoids a standard objection to that theory.
Christine Korsgaard’s Self-Constitution: Agency, Identity, and Integrity is an impressive endeavour to synthesize the ethics of Plato and Kant in a comprehensive account of action and agency that locates the key to understanding both in self-constitution. A purportedly comprehensive account of action and agency will fail on its own terms if it cannot adequately account for some morally salient phenomenon. Korsgaard’s account fails to adequately account for the possibility of evil actions and evil people. If self-constitution is key to action and agency, then we must abandon the Platonic and Kantian elements that Korsgaard endorses.
According to Christine Korsgaard’s account of practical identity, we as human agents are not only bound by the normativity of moral necessity but also addressees of strict claims that are grounded in our own individual personality. Thus, any agent would—at least in principle—be entitled to say “Here I stand I can do no other—because I am me.” Why does Korsgaard hold that “being yourself” should have any strict normative implications? What kind of normativity is involved here? Bambauer comes to the conclusion that Korsgaard justifies the practical necessity of being a person—of being somebody—but she does not justify being me or being you. This is problematic, since the alleged normativity of duties, which are grounded in our particular identities, requires the strict normativity of these specific identities. Furthermore, following Korsgaard’s theory, strict practical necessity is grounded in our rational nature (our capacity to act), and only those principles and norms that enable us to act are strictly binding for us because they enable us to act. While Korsgaard may be justified in inferring the strict normativity of certain reasons from their action-constitutive function, it remains unclear why sharing certain reasons with another person in a deep way should imply a normative status similar to moral reasons. This holds since relationship-based reasons are not shown to be constitutive of action. As Bambauer finally points out, this is indicative of a structural inconsistency of Korsgaard’s theory of practical identities.
In this article, I take off from some central issues in Paul Katsafanas' recent book Agency and the Foundations of Ethics. I argue that Katsafanas' alleged aims of action fail to do the work he requires them to do. First, his approach to activity or control is deeply problematic in the light of counterexamples, but as the related issues are substantially under-theorized, we do not at present know what agential activity or control may imply. More importantly, the view of activity or control he needs to get his argument going is most likely false, as it requires our values to do work that they are too fickle to do. Second, I take issue with the Nietzschean drive psychology underlying the second agential aim, viz. power. I argue that ordinary desires better describe a number of phenomena that Katsafanas uses drives to explain, and that some actions can aim in the opposite direction. As only drive-motivated actions aim at power, action does not, therefore, constitutively aim at power. Finally, I sketch a Humean approach to constitutivism, and argue that it both explains the desiderata that Katsafanas posits as well as solves the problems for his view. Constitutivists should prefer it to his view and develop it further.
There are at least two basic normative notions: rationality and reasons. The dominant normative account of reasons nowadays, which I call primitive pluralism about reasons, holds that some reasons are normatively basic and there is no underlying normative explanation of them in terms of other normative notions. Kantian constructivism about reasons, understood as a normative rather than a metaethical view, holds that rationality is the primitive normative notion that picks out which non-normative facts are reasons for what and explains why those normative relations hold. By supposing that there is a plurality of primitive reasons, I argue that primitive pluralism about reasons lacks sufficient normative unity and structure. But Kantian constructivism about reasons faces a dilemma of its own: Either a conception of rationality is thick enough to capture the reasons of commonsense, in which case it cannot play the explanatory role assigned to it, or a conception of rationality is genuinely explanatory, in which case it is too thin to generate the reasons we recognize in commonsense. The aim of this paper is to suggest that if Kantian constructivism about reasons were built on a substantive, rather than merely formal, conception of rationality then it would stand a better chance at unifying the particular reasons we would endorse on due reflection. The groundwork I lay in this paper, I explain, is an essential first step in the larger project of developing a version of Kantian constructivism about reasons that might eventually explain all reasons in terms of rationality.
This book traces a complex of issues surrounding moral agency from Kant through Schelling to Kierkegaard. There are two complementary projects. The first is to clarify the contours of German idealism as a philosophical movement by examining the motivations not only of its beginning, but also of its end. In tracing the motivations for the transition to mid-19th century post-idealism to Schelling's middle and late periods and, ultimately, back to a problem originally presented in Kant, it shows the causes of the demise of that movement to be the same as the causes of its rise. In the process, it presents the most detailed discussion to date of the moral psychology and moral epistemology of Schelling's work after 1809. The second project - which is simply the first viewed from a different angle - is to trace the sources of Kierkegaard's theory of agency and his criticism of philosophical ethics to this same complex of issues in Kant and post-Kantian idealism. In the process, it is argued that Schelling's influence on Kierkegaard was greater than has been thought, and builds a new understanding of Kierkegaard's project in his pseudonymous works on the basis of this revised picture of their historical background.
This collection of new essays explores in depth how and why we act when we follow practical standards, particularly in connection with the authority of legal texts and lawmakers. The essays focus on the interplay of intentions and practical reasons, engaging incisive arguments to demonstrate both the close connection between them, and the inadequacy of accounts that downplay this important link. Their wide-ranging discussion includes topics such as legal interpretation, the paradox of intention, the relation between moral and legal obligation, and legal realism. The volume will appeal to scholars and students of legal philosophy, moral philosophy, law, social science, cognitive psychology, and philosophy of action.
Are there such things as moral truths? How do we know what we should do? And does it matter? Constructivism states that moral truths are neither invented nor discovered, but rather are constructed by rational agents in order to solve practical problems. While constructivism has become the focus of many philosophical debates in normative ethics, meta-ethics and action theory, its importance is still to be fully appreciated. These new essays written by leading scholars define and assess this new approach in ethics, addressing such questions as the nature of constructivism, how constructivism improves our understanding of moral obligations, how it accounts for the development of normative practices, whether moral truths change over time, and many other topics. The volume will be valuable for advanced students and scholars of ethics and all who are interested in questions about the foundation of morality.
As the continuous development of technology, the processes of technological innovation involve in more elements and tend to be more complicated. Regional technology innovation ability, regarded as important research content in regional innovation system, can be the reflection of the extent to functioning in regional technology innovation system. Based on extant research in this field, this paper constructs a measurement framework indicating regional technology innovation ability. We draw a three-level evaluation indicators system of regional technology innovation ability to evaluate national regional competitiveness, urban competitiveness and regional modernization. We also select Yunnan Province as an example to expound the regional technology innovation ability, and elaborate the procession of indicators construction of regional technology innovation ability.
It is often argued, most recently by Samuel Scheffler, that we should reconcile with our mortality as constitutive of our existence: as essential to its temporal structure, to the nature of deliberation, and to our basic motivations and values. Against this reconciliatory strategy, I argue that there is a kind of immortal existence that is coherently conceivable and potentially desirable. First, I argue against the claim that our existence has a temporal structure with a trajectory that necessarily culminates in an ending. This claim is based on two false assumptions: that a life as a whole calls for narrative structure, and that narratives necessarily require closure as temporal endings. Second, I reject the proposal that temporal finitude is constitutive of the basic elements of diachronic agency, including the nature of deliberation and of our values. I argue that only finitude as scarcity of opportunities is constitutive of these elements. Additionally, scarcity might be present in an endless existence. Therefore, it is not incoherent to conceive of a recognizable and potentially desirable immortality that grounds the core features of diachronic agency. Thus, against the reconciliatory strategy, I conclude that we might never fully reconcile with mortality. Although we might embrace our inescapable mortality as essential to a fuller range of features of our existence, we can still justifiably regret our missing on an immortal existence.
There are several senses in which Kant’s moral law is independent of sensibility. This paper is devoted mainly to Kant’s account of ‘physical conditions independence’, or the idea that the moral law can compel us to pursue ends that might be impossible to realize empirically. Since this idea has received little attention from commentators, this paper addresses both its textual basis in Kant’s writings and its overall philosophical viability.
A travers l'exemple du roi raisonnable dans le «Petit prince» de Saint-Exupery, l'A. defend la validite de l'instrumentalisme humeen contre l'objection de trivialite normative. Examinant la notion de demande minimale et d'utilite subjective, l'A. souleve la question du fondement non-normatif des raisons chez Korsgaard et Quinn.
These thirteen new, specially written essays by a distinguished international line-up of contributors, including some leading contemporary moral philosophers, give a rich and varied view of current work on ethics and practical reason. The three main perspectives on the topic, Kantian, Humean, and Aristotelian, are all well represented. Issues covered include: the connection between reason and motivation; the source of moral reasons and their relation to reasons of self-interest; the relation of practical reason to value, to freedom, to responsibility, and to feelings. The editors' introduction provides a valuable introductory survey of the topic, putting the individual essays in context. Ethics and Practical Reason will be essential reading for scholars, postgraduates, and upper-level undergraduates working in this area.
This book defends the traditional conception of morality as a rational, impartial constraint on the pursuit of individual interest or benefit. The principal obstacle faced by this conception is that the received account of rationality in economics and the social sciences identifies it with the maximization of individual interest (or more technically, utility); how then can a constraint on the pursuit of interest be rational? The key to meeting this obstacle is found in the recognition that in many situations, if each person seeks directly to maximize her utility, the outcome is sub‐optimal—i.e. at least one alternative would benefit everyone. This suggests that we think of morality in a contractarian way, i.e. as the object of a universal rational bargain in which all agree to constrain their pursuit of interest by acting on a principle that would yield optimality, i.e. an outcome such that no alternative would benefit everyone.
Such a principle is developed on the basis of the idea that rational persons seek to minimize their bargaining concessions, and establish its moral status by showing that it is an impartial constraint on everyone's behaviour. There are however two problems: (1) why would rational persons honour their agreement to act on this principle, if they could do better to violate it? and (2) what would rational persons accept as an initial position, from which they would bargain? To answer the first question, it is shown that, under plausible conditions, persons may expect to benefit from a disposition (constrained maximization) to act with others on a rationally agreed principle, rather than from a disposition (straightforward maximization) to maximize directly their individual utility. To answer the second, it is shown that the basis from which agreement proceeds must rationally be constrained by what is called the (Lockean) proviso, which prohibits bettering one's situation through interaction that worsens the situation of another. We sketch brief applications of our account of morality to questions about taxation, appropriation, relations between societies, and relations among generations. Finally, we seek to distinguish the view of human beings and fulfilment underlying our theory from the caricature of ‘economic man’, developing a conception of the liberal individual.
Cambridge Core - Texts in Political Thought - Hegel: Elements of the Philosophy of Right - edited by Allen W. Wood
The study of rationality and practical reason, or rationality in action, has been central to Western intellectual culture. In this invigorating book, John Searle lays out six claims of what he calls the Classical Model of rationality and shows why they are false. He then presents an alternative theory of the role of rationality in thought and action.
A central point of Searle's theory is that only irrational actions are directly caused by beliefs and desires—for example, the actions of a person in the grip of an obsession or addiction. In most cases of rational action, there is a gap between the motivating desire and the actual decision making. The traditional name for this gap is "freedom of the will." According to Searle, all rational activity presupposes free will. For rationality is possible only where one has a choice among various rational as well as irrational options.
Unlike many philosophical tracts, Rationality in Action invites the reader to apply the author's ideas to everyday life. Searle shows, for example, that contrary to the traditional philosophical view, weakness of will is very common. He also points out the absurdity of the claim that rational decision making always starts from a consistent set of desires. Rational decision making, he argues, is often about choosing between conflicting reasons for action. In fact, humans are distinguished by their ability to be rationally motivated by desire-independent reasons for action. Extending his theory of rationality to the self, Searle shows how rational deliberation presupposes an irreducible notion of the self. He also reveals the idea of free will to be essentially a thesis of how the brain works.
Bradford Books imprint
This paper addresses some connections between conceptions of the will and the theory of practical reason. The first two sections argue against the idea that volitional commitments should be understood along the lines of endorsement of normative principles. A normative account of volition cannot make sense of akrasia, and it obscures an important difference between belief and intention. Sections three and four draw on the non-normative conception of the will in an account of instrumental rationality. The central problem is to explain the grip of instrumental requirements even in cases in which agents do not fully endorse the ends they are pursuing. The solution I propose appeals to coherence constraints on the beliefs that condition the distinctive volitional stance of intention.
Practical reasoning is a process of reasoning that concludes in an intention. One example is reasoning from intending an end to intending what you believe is a necessary means: ‘I will leave the next buoy to port; in order to do that I must tack; so I';ll tack’, where the first and third sentences express intentions and the second sentence a belief. This sort of practical reasoning is supported by a valid logical derivation, and therefore seems uncontrovertible. A more contentious example is normative practical reasoning of the form ‘I ought to φ, so I';ll φ’, where ‘I ought to φ’ expresses a normative belief and ‘I';ll φ’ an intention. This has at least some characteristics of reasoning, but there are also grounds for doubting that it is genuine reasoning. One objection is that it seems inappropriate to derive an intention to φ from a belief that you ought to φ, rather than a belief that you ought to intend to φ. Another is that you may not be able to go through this putative process of reasoning, and this inability might disqualify it from being reasoning. A third objection is that it violates the Humean doctrine that reason alone cannot motivate any action of the will. This paper investigates these objections.
This book is a collection of ten papers on practical reason and moral psychology. Part 1 defends the view that the principles of practical reason are constitutive principles of action. By governing our actions in accordance with Kant's categorical imperative and the principle of instrumental reason we take control of our own movements and so render ourselves active, self-determining beings. Part II takes up the question of the role of our passive or receptive faculties — our emotions and responses — in constituting our agency. It offers a reading of the Nicomachean Ethics based on the idea that our emotions are perceptions of good and evil, and argues that Aristotle and Kant share a distinctive view about the locus of moral value and the nature of human choice. Part III takes up the question how we come to view one another as moral agents in Hume's philosophy, and examines the possible clash between the agency of the state and that of the individual that led to Kant's paradoxical views about revolution. And finally, the book discusses methodology in an account of what it means to be a constructivist moral philosopher.
Ethical concepts are, or purport to be, normative. They make claims on us: they command, oblige, recommend, or guide. Or at least when we invoke them, we make claims on one another; but where does their authority over us - or ours over one another - come from? Christine Korsgaard identifies four accounts of the source of normativity that have been advocated by modern moral philosophers: voluntarism, realism, reflective endorsement, and the appeal to autonomy. She traces their history, showing how each developed in response to the prior one and comparing their early versions with those on the contemporary philosophical scene. Kant's theory that normativity springs from our own autonomy emerges as a synthesis of the other three, and Korsgaard concludes with her own version of the Kantian account. Her discussion is followed by commentary from G. A. Cohen, Raymond Geuss, Thomas Nagel, and Bernard Williams, and a reply by Korsgaard.
Might There Be External Reasons? " in his Mind Of course, many others have explicitly endorsed the connection: Stephen Darwall
- John Mcdowell
John McDowell, " Might There Be External Reasons? " in his Mind, Value, and Reality (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998), p. 105; Christine Korsgaard, The Sources of Normativity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 161. Of course, many others have explicitly endorsed the connection: Stephen Darwall, " Internalism and Agency, " Philosophical Perspectives 6 (1992): 155–74;
The Normativity of Instrumental Reason This content downloaded from 198.109.194.139 on Mon
- Korsgaard
Korsgaard, " The Normativity of Instrumental Reason, " p. 248. This content downloaded from 198.109.194.139 on Mon, 22 Apr 2013 11:44:54 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Some Further Notes on Internal and External Reasons Might There Be External Reasons
- Jonathan Bennett
Jonathan Bennett, Rationality: An Essay toward Analysis (Indianapolis: Hackett,
1989), p. 17; Robert Brandom, Making It Explicit (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 1994), p. 14; Bernard Williams, " Some Further Notes on Internal and External
Reasons, " in Practical Reasoning, ed. Elijah Millgram (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press,
2001), pp. 91–97, pp. 92–93; John McDowell, " Might There Be External Reasons? " in
his Mind, Value, and Reality (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998), p. 105;
Of course, many others have explicitly endorsed the connection Internalism and Agency Humean Doubts about the Practical Justification of Morality The Groundless Normativity of Instrumental Rationality
- Christine Korsgaard
- The Sources
- Normativity
Christine Korsgaard, The Sources of Normativity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1996), p. 161. Of course, many others have explicitly endorsed the connection: Stephen
Darwall, " Internalism and Agency, " Philosophical Perspectives 6 (1992): 155–74; James
Dreier, " Humean Doubts about the Practical Justification of Morality, " in Ethics and
Practical Reason, ed. Garrett Cullity and Berys Gaut (New York: Oxford University Press,
1997), pp. 81–99; Donald Hubin, " The Groundless Normativity of Instrumental Rationality, " Journal of Philosophy 98 (2001): 445–68; Peter Railton, " On the Hypothetical
and Non-Hypothetical in Reasoning about Belief and Action, " in Cullity and Gaut, eds.,
pp. 53–79; John Searle, Rationality in Action (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2001), chap.
Darwall is right that judgment internalism has figured prominently in contemporary arguments for practical noncognitivism. Still, as Darwall recognizes, the general orientation is not limited to noncognitivists
- Stephen Darwall