行为的道义至上?

IF 1.6 1区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.5840/jphil20231201030
Andrew T. Forcehimes
{"title":"行为的道义至上?","authors":"Andrew T. Forcehimes","doi":"10.5840/jphil20231201030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Why ought we to perform the actions that we ought to perform? We can categorize the various answers to this question depending on whether they hold that the oughts governing actions are explained by the oughts governing non-actions. In this essay, I show how a handful of plausible claims from normative ethics, moral psychology, and the philosophy of action entail the conclusion that what an agent ought to do is explained by the attitudes she ought to have.","PeriodicalId":51370,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Deontic Primacy of Actions?\",\"authors\":\"Andrew T. Forcehimes\",\"doi\":\"10.5840/jphil20231201030\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Why ought we to perform the actions that we ought to perform? We can categorize the various answers to this question depending on whether they hold that the oughts governing actions are explained by the oughts governing non-actions. In this essay, I show how a handful of plausible claims from normative ethics, moral psychology, and the philosophy of action entail the conclusion that what an agent ought to do is explained by the attitudes she ought to have.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51370,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5840/jphil20231201030\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"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":"JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/jphil20231201030","RegionNum":1,"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

为什么我们应该做我们应该做的事?我们可以对这个问题的不同答案进行分类,这取决于他们是否认为支配行为的应该是由支配不作为的应该来解释的。在这篇文章中,我展示了一些来自规范伦理学、道德心理学和行为哲学的貌似合理的主张是如何得出这样的结论的:一个行为人应该做什么,是由她应该拥有的态度来解释的。
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
The Deontic Primacy of Actions?
Why ought we to perform the actions that we ought to perform? We can categorize the various answers to this question depending on whether they hold that the oughts governing actions are explained by the oughts governing non-actions. In this essay, I show how a handful of plausible claims from normative ethics, moral psychology, and the philosophy of action entail the conclusion that what an agent ought to do is explained by the attitudes she ought to have.
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
JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY
JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
7.70%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: To publish philosophical articles of current interest and encourage the interchange of ideas, especially the exploration of the borderline between philosophy and other disciplines.
期刊最新文献
Interpersonal Comparisons of What? The Bounds of Possibility: Puzzles of Modal Variation. Cian Dorr and John Hawthorne, with Juhani Yli-Vakkuri Is Act Theory a Propositional Logic without Logic? Authentic Speech and Insincerity Call for Submissions: The Isaac Levi Prize
×
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