关于登录的评论--论规范性解释理由与规范性推理理由之间的联系

IF 0.5 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY PHILOSOPHIA Pub Date : 2024-09-07 DOI:10.1007/s11406-024-00777-7
Eva Schmidt
{"title":"关于登录的评论--论规范性解释理由与规范性推理理由之间的联系","authors":"Eva Schmidt","doi":"10.1007/s11406-024-00777-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The comment starts with a brief exposition of the Eroteric View put forth by Artūrs Logins. I then provide one friendly comment on the exact form of the normative question which is central to the view, and suggest that in addition to the question, ‘Why ought <i>S</i> to <i>φ</i> ?’, Logins should take the question, ‘Why is <i>S</i> permitted to <i>φ</i>?’ as definitive of normative reasons. In a more critical comment, I reflect on how normative explanatory reasons and normative reasoning reasons relate, calling into question Logins’s claim that the two kinds of reasons are fundamentally distinct. First, I argue that being a normative explanatory reason near enough guarantees being a normative reasoning reason; second, I argue that normative explanatory reasons as well as normative reasoning reasons can be weighed, and that they can be weighed against each other. But this causes trouble for the Eroteric View.</p>","PeriodicalId":46695,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHIA","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comment on Logins – On the Connection between Normative Explanatory Reasons and Normative Reasoning Reasons\",\"authors\":\"Eva Schmidt\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11406-024-00777-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The comment starts with a brief exposition of the Eroteric View put forth by Artūrs Logins. I then provide one friendly comment on the exact form of the normative question which is central to the view, and suggest that in addition to the question, ‘Why ought <i>S</i> to <i>φ</i> ?’, Logins should take the question, ‘Why is <i>S</i> permitted to <i>φ</i>?’ as definitive of normative reasons. In a more critical comment, I reflect on how normative explanatory reasons and normative reasoning reasons relate, calling into question Logins’s claim that the two kinds of reasons are fundamentally distinct. First, I argue that being a normative explanatory reason near enough guarantees being a normative reasoning reason; second, I argue that normative explanatory reasons as well as normative reasoning reasons can be weighed, and that they can be weighed against each other. But this causes trouble for the Eroteric View.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46695,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PHILOSOPHIA\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PHILOSOPHIA\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-024-00777-7\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"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":"PHILOSOPHIA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-024-00777-7","RegionNum":4,"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

这篇评论首先简要阐述了阿尔图尔-罗金斯(Artūrs Logins)提出的 "阉割观"(Eroteric View)。然后,我对作为该观点核心的规范性问题的确切形式提出了友好的评论,并建议除了 "为什么 S 应该 φ?"这个问题之外,洛金斯还应该把 "为什么 S 被允许 φ?"这个问题作为规范性理由的定论。在更具批判性的评论中,我反思了规范性解释理由与规范性推理理由之间的关系,对洛金斯关于这两种理由在本质上截然不同的说法提出了质疑。首先,我认为规范性解释理由几乎足以保证规范性推理理由;其次,我认为规范性解释理由和规范性推理理由都可以权衡,而且可以相互权衡。但这给 "阉割观 "带来了麻烦。
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
Comment on Logins – On the Connection between Normative Explanatory Reasons and Normative Reasoning Reasons

The comment starts with a brief exposition of the Eroteric View put forth by Artūrs Logins. I then provide one friendly comment on the exact form of the normative question which is central to the view, and suggest that in addition to the question, ‘Why ought S to φ ?’, Logins should take the question, ‘Why is S permitted to φ?’ as definitive of normative reasons. In a more critical comment, I reflect on how normative explanatory reasons and normative reasoning reasons relate, calling into question Logins’s claim that the two kinds of reasons are fundamentally distinct. First, I argue that being a normative explanatory reason near enough guarantees being a normative reasoning reason; second, I argue that normative explanatory reasons as well as normative reasoning reasons can be weighed, and that they can be weighed against each other. But this causes trouble for the Eroteric View.

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
PHILOSOPHIA
PHILOSOPHIA PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
20.00%
发文量
141
期刊介绍: Founded in 1971, Philosophia is a much-respected journal that has provided a platform to many well-known philosophers, including Kenneth Arrow, A.J. Ayer, Roderick Chisholm, Bas van Fraassen, William Frankena, P.T. Geach, Alan Gewirth, Jaakko Hintikka, Richard Popkin, W.V.O. Quine, Gilbert Ryle, Marcus Singer, Peter Singer, J.J.C. Smart, P.F. Strawson, and many others. Philosophia also published papers of Ludwig Wittgenstein and Rudolf Carnap. Philosophia is an international journal in scope, submissions and readership. The journal publishes contributions fitting within various philosophical traditions, but manifests a preference of the analytic tradition in the broad sense of commitment to clarity and responsibility. Besides papers in the traditional subfields of philosophy and its history, Philosophia also publishes work on topical subjects such as racism, silence of God, terrorism, the nature of philosophy, emotion, AIDS, scientific discovery, punishment, modality, and institutional theory of art. Philosophia welcomes a wide range of contributions to academic philosophy, covering all fields of philosophy. Contributions to the journal may take the form of topical papers, philosophical surveys of literature, symposia papers, short discussion notes, puzzles, profiles, book reviews and more extensive critical studies of new books. The journal includes a ''books revisited'' section where a book and its impact are reconsidered a decade or more after its appearance. Double-blind review procedure The journal follows a double-blind reviewing procedure. Authors are therefore requested to place their name and affiliation on a separate page. Self-identifying citations and references in the article text should either be avoided or left blank when manuscripts are first submitted. Authors are responsible for reinserting self-identifying citations and references when manuscripts are prepared for final submission.Please read our Editorial Policies carefully before you submit your paper to this journal https://www.springer.com/gp/editorial-policies
期刊最新文献
Precis of Nenad Miscevic, Thought Experiments (Springer, 2022) Conditional Obligation, Permissibility, and the All or Nothing Problem Comment on Logins – On the Connection between Normative Explanatory Reasons and Normative Reasoning Reasons The Cognitive and Ontological Dimensions of Naturalness – Editor’s Introduction A View from the Periphery Commentary on Philip Kitcher’s What’s the Use of Philosophy
×
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