Why Did You Really Do It? Human Reasoning and Reasons for Action

IF 0.3 3区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Organon F Pub Date : 2021-11-29 DOI:10.31577/orgf.2021.28405
J. Gascón
{"title":"Why Did You Really Do It? Human Reasoning and Reasons for Action","authors":"J. Gascón","doi":"10.31577/orgf.2021.28405","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"During the last decades several studies in cognitive psychology have shown that many of our actions do not depend on the reasons that we adduce afterwards, when we have to account for them. Our decisions seem to be often influenced by normatively or explanatorily irrelevant features of the environment of which we are not aware, and the reasons we offer for those decisions are a posteriori rationalisations. But exactly what reasons has the psychological research uncovered? In philosophy, a distinction has been commonly made between normative and motivating reasons: normative reasons make an action right, whereas motivating reasons explain our behaviour. Recently, Maria Alvarez has argued that, apart from normative (or justifying) reasons, we should further distinguish between motivating and explanatory reasons. We have, then, three kinds of reasons, and it is not clear which of them have been revealed as the real reasons for our actions by the psychological research. The answer we give to this question will have important implications both for the validity of our classifications of reasons and for our understanding of human action.","PeriodicalId":43025,"journal":{"name":"Organon F","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organon F","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31577/orgf.2021.28405","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

During the last decades several studies in cognitive psychology have shown that many of our actions do not depend on the reasons that we adduce afterwards, when we have to account for them. Our decisions seem to be often influenced by normatively or explanatorily irrelevant features of the environment of which we are not aware, and the reasons we offer for those decisions are a posteriori rationalisations. But exactly what reasons has the psychological research uncovered? In philosophy, a distinction has been commonly made between normative and motivating reasons: normative reasons make an action right, whereas motivating reasons explain our behaviour. Recently, Maria Alvarez has argued that, apart from normative (or justifying) reasons, we should further distinguish between motivating and explanatory reasons. We have, then, three kinds of reasons, and it is not clear which of them have been revealed as the real reasons for our actions by the psychological research. The answer we give to this question will have important implications both for the validity of our classifications of reasons and for our understanding of human action.
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
你到底为什么要这么做?人类的推理和行动的理由
在过去的几十年里,认知心理学的几项研究表明,当我们必须解释这些原因时,我们的许多行为并不取决于我们事后提出的原因。我们的决定似乎经常受到我们不知道的环境的规范或解释性无关特征的影响,而我们为这些决定提供的原因是后验理性。但心理学研究究竟揭示了什么原因呢?在哲学中,规范性原因和激励性原因之间通常有区别:规范性原因使行动正确,而激励性原因解释我们的行为。最近,Maria Alvarez认为,除了规范性(或正当性)原因外,我们还应该进一步区分激励性和解释性原因。那么,我们有三种原因,而心理学研究还不清楚其中哪一种是我们行为的真正原因。我们对这个问题的回答将对我们对原因分类的有效性和我们对人类行为的理解产生重要影响。
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
Organon F
Organon F PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
20.00%
发文量
19
审稿时长
38 weeks
期刊介绍: Organon F publishes high-quality articles on the entire range of topics discussed in contemporary analytic philosophy. Accordingly, we invite authors to submit articles that address issues that belong, but are not limited, to philosophy of language, philosophy of mind, philosophy of science, epistemology, metaphysics and philosophical logic. We also consider analytically written articles on ethics, aesthetics, social philosophy, political philosophy and history of philosophy. The principal aim is to publish original articles that meet the standards typical of analytic philosophy, primarily those of conceptual clarity, precision and soundness of argumentation.
期刊最新文献
Causal Capabilities of Teleology and Teleonomy in Life and Evolution Perfect Thinkers, Perfect Speakers and Internalism about Thought Content Does Deep Moral Disagreement Exist in Real Life? On Everything Is Necessarily What It Is On Historical Context of Leszek Nowak’s Idealizational Conception of Science
×
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