忠告作为理由的典范

IF 0.6 2区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Analytic Philosophy Pub Date : 2023-09-16 DOI:10.1111/phib.12320
Andrew Sneddon
{"title":"忠告作为理由的典范","authors":"Andrew Sneddon","doi":"10.1111/phib.12320","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Smith ( Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 55 , 1995, 109) and Manne ( Philosophical Studies , 167 , 2014, 89), both following Williams ( Making sense of humanity , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995), have developed advice‐based models of practical reasons. However, advice is not an apt model for reasons. The case for such pessimism is made by examining the positions of Smith and Manne first as attempts to explain the nature of reasons, then as suggestions for reforming our conception of reasons for action. The explanatory projects fail: both views either omit or distort ordinary reasons. The reforming project fails because insufficient reason is provided for thinking that the significant extent of revision offered by these models is worth it. Overall, the advice‐based approach to understanding reasons fails because advising is a social practice to aid with decisions, whereas reasons are considerations that favour action regardless of whether these considerations are inputs to or outputs from such a practice.","PeriodicalId":45646,"journal":{"name":"Analytic Philosophy","volume":"111 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Advice as a model for reasons\",\"authors\":\"Andrew Sneddon\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/phib.12320\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Smith ( Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 55 , 1995, 109) and Manne ( Philosophical Studies , 167 , 2014, 89), both following Williams ( Making sense of humanity , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995), have developed advice‐based models of practical reasons. However, advice is not an apt model for reasons. The case for such pessimism is made by examining the positions of Smith and Manne first as attempts to explain the nature of reasons, then as suggestions for reforming our conception of reasons for action. The explanatory projects fail: both views either omit or distort ordinary reasons. The reforming project fails because insufficient reason is provided for thinking that the significant extent of revision offered by these models is worth it. Overall, the advice‐based approach to understanding reasons fails because advising is a social practice to aid with decisions, whereas reasons are considerations that favour action regardless of whether these considerations are inputs to or outputs from such a practice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45646,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Analytic Philosophy\",\"volume\":\"111 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Analytic Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/phib.12320\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Analytic Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/phib.12320","RegionNum":2,"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

摘要

史密斯(哲学与现象学研究,55,1995,109)和曼恩(哲学研究,167,2014,89)继威廉姆斯(《人性的意义》,剑桥大学出版社,1995)之后,发展了基于建议的实践原因模型。然而,由于种种原因,建议并不是一个合适的模式。这种悲观主义是通过考察史密斯和曼恩的立场来形成的,他们首先试图解释理性的本质,然后作为改革我们行为理性概念的建议。解释性项目失败了:两种观点要么忽略了,要么扭曲了普通的原因。改革项目之所以失败,是因为没有提供足够的理由来证明这些模型所提供的重大修订是值得的。总的来说,基于建议的理解原因的方法失败了,因为建议是一种帮助决策的社会实践,而原因是有利于行动的考虑,无论这些考虑是这种实践的输入还是输出。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Advice as a model for reasons
Abstract Smith ( Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 55 , 1995, 109) and Manne ( Philosophical Studies , 167 , 2014, 89), both following Williams ( Making sense of humanity , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995), have developed advice‐based models of practical reasons. However, advice is not an apt model for reasons. The case for such pessimism is made by examining the positions of Smith and Manne first as attempts to explain the nature of reasons, then as suggestions for reforming our conception of reasons for action. The explanatory projects fail: both views either omit or distort ordinary reasons. The reforming project fails because insufficient reason is provided for thinking that the significant extent of revision offered by these models is worth it. Overall, the advice‐based approach to understanding reasons fails because advising is a social practice to aid with decisions, whereas reasons are considerations that favour action regardless of whether these considerations are inputs to or outputs from such a practice.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Analytic Philosophy
Analytic Philosophy PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Categorial versus naturalized epistemology Naked statistical evidence and verdictive justice Issue Information Bringing the deep self back to the racecourse: Rethinking accountability and the deep self
×
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