完全原谅自己的错误

IF 0.7 2区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY PACIFIC PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY Pub Date : 2022-08-26 DOI:10.1111/papq.12425
D. Bruno
{"title":"完全原谅自己的错误","authors":"D. Bruno","doi":"10.1111/papq.12425","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":": Ontheclassicalunderstanding,anagentisfullyexcusedforanactionif and only if performing this action was a case of faultless wrongdoing. A major motivation for this view is the apparent existence of paradigmatic types of excusing considerations, affecting fault but not wrongness. I show that three such considerations, ignorance, duress and compulsion, can be shown to have direct bearing on the permissibility of actions. The appeal to distinctly identifiable excusing considerations thus does not stand up to closer scrutiny, undermining the classical view and giving us reason to seek alternative ways of drawing the justification/excuse distinction.","PeriodicalId":47097,"journal":{"name":"PACIFIC PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Being Fully Excused for Wrongdoing\",\"authors\":\"D. Bruno\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/papq.12425\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\": Ontheclassicalunderstanding,anagentisfullyexcusedforanactionif and only if performing this action was a case of faultless wrongdoing. A major motivation for this view is the apparent existence of paradigmatic types of excusing considerations, affecting fault but not wrongness. I show that three such considerations, ignorance, duress and compulsion, can be shown to have direct bearing on the permissibility of actions. The appeal to distinctly identifiable excusing considerations thus does not stand up to closer scrutiny, undermining the classical view and giving us reason to seek alternative ways of drawing the justification/excuse distinction.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47097,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PACIFIC PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PACIFIC PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/papq.12425\",\"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":"PACIFIC PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/papq.12425","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: 1

摘要

在经典的理解中,当且仅当代理人的行为是没有过错的情况下,才可以为其行为辩解。这种观点的主要动机是明显存在范例类型的借口考虑,影响错误,但不影响错误。我指出,无知、胁迫和强迫这三种因素可以被证明对行为的可容许性有直接影响。因此,对明显可识别的借口考虑的呼吁经不起更仔细的审查,破坏了经典观点,并使我们有理由寻求其他方法来区分理由/借口。
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
Being Fully Excused for Wrongdoing
: Ontheclassicalunderstanding,anagentisfullyexcusedforanactionif and only if performing this action was a case of faultless wrongdoing. A major motivation for this view is the apparent existence of paradigmatic types of excusing considerations, affecting fault but not wrongness. I show that three such considerations, ignorance, duress and compulsion, can be shown to have direct bearing on the permissibility of actions. The appeal to distinctly identifiable excusing considerations thus does not stand up to closer scrutiny, undermining the classical view and giving us reason to seek alternative ways of drawing the justification/excuse distinction.
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
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: Pacific Philosophical Quarterly is a journal of general philosophy in the analytic tradition, publishing original articles from all areas of philosophy including metaphysics, epistemology, moral philosophy, political philosophy, philosophy of language, philosophy of mind, aesthetics and history of philosophy. Periodically, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly publishes special editions devoted to the investigation of important topics in a particular field.
期刊最新文献
Against Adoption‐Based Objections to Procreation Making Sense of Racial Membership Does White Supremacy Explain Racial Inequality? Mereological Nihilism and Material Constitution True Love Is Reciprocal: Thomas Aquinas on the Love of Friendship
×
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