Equal Respect for Rational Agency

M. Cholbi
{"title":"Equal Respect for Rational Agency","authors":"M. Cholbi","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198867944.003.0009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Individuals are owed equal respect. But on the basis of what property of individuals are they owed such respect? A popular Kantian answer—rational agency—appears less plausible in light of the growing psychological evidence that human choice is subject to a wide array of biases (framing, laziness, etc.); human beings are neither equal in rational agency nor especially robust rational agents. Defenders of this Kantian answer thus need a non-ideal theory of equal respect for rational agency, one that takes seriously our characteristic deficiencies of practical rationality without junking the niotion that rational agency entitles us to equal respect. This chapter defends an understanding of respect for rational agency wherein the object of such respect is individuals’ aspiration to rationally govern their lives. This understanding of respect for rational agency retains the core notion of respect as a kind of deference, directs respect at persons, has suitably egalitarian implications, and does not require us to deny the aforementioned psychological evidence regarding the infirmities of human rationality.","PeriodicalId":423862,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics Volume 10","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics Volume 10","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198867944.003.0009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Individuals are owed equal respect. But on the basis of what property of individuals are they owed such respect? A popular Kantian answer—rational agency—appears less plausible in light of the growing psychological evidence that human choice is subject to a wide array of biases (framing, laziness, etc.); human beings are neither equal in rational agency nor especially robust rational agents. Defenders of this Kantian answer thus need a non-ideal theory of equal respect for rational agency, one that takes seriously our characteristic deficiencies of practical rationality without junking the niotion that rational agency entitles us to equal respect. This chapter defends an understanding of respect for rational agency wherein the object of such respect is individuals’ aspiration to rationally govern their lives. This understanding of respect for rational agency retains the core notion of respect as a kind of deference, directs respect at persons, has suitably egalitarian implications, and does not require us to deny the aforementioned psychological evidence regarding the infirmities of human rationality.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
平等尊重理性能动性
个人应该得到平等的尊重。但是基于个人的什么属性,他们应该得到这样的尊重呢?鉴于越来越多的心理学证据表明,人类的选择受到一系列偏见(框架、懒惰等)的影响,一个流行的康德式答案——理性能动——似乎不太可信;人类在理性行为人和特别强大的理性行为人上都不平等。因此,康德式答案的捍卫者需要一种平等尊重理性能动性的非理想理论,这种理论要认真对待我们在实践理性方面的典型缺陷,同时又不抛弃理性能动性赋予我们平等尊重的观念。本章对尊重理性能动性的理解进行了辩护,其中尊重的对象是个人理性管理其生活的愿望。这种对理性能动性的尊重的理解保留了尊重作为一种顺从的核心概念,将尊重指向个人,具有适当的平等主义含义,并且不要求我们否认上述关于人类理性弱点的心理学证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Moral Obligation and Epistemic Risk Incomparable Numbers Willful Ignorance and Moral Responsibility A Kantian Solution to the Trolley Problem Equal Respect for Rational Agency
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1