海曼关于故意解释和偏差因果链问题

IF 0.9 3区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Philosophical Explorations Pub Date : 2021-09-24 DOI:10.1080/13869795.2021.1980604
Elia Haemmerli
{"title":"海曼关于故意解释和偏差因果链问题","authors":"Elia Haemmerli","doi":"10.1080/13869795.2021.1980604","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Intentional explanations are explanations of actions that specify the motive for which the action was done. A central question is whether causality plays a role in such explanations. Causalists insist that it does. One of the most pressing problems for Causalism is often taken to be the possibility that what an agent does is caused by her motive despite the agent not acting intentionally. This is known as the problem of deviant causal chains. Recently, Causalism has received a new defence by Hyman, which includes a treatment of the problem of deviant causal chains. This paper assesses Hyman’s account by focusing on its commitments. First, to get a clear view of the relation between Causalism and the problem of deviant causal chains it distinguishes the question whether intentional explanations are causal explanations from the question whether they admit of an analysis in causal terms. Secondly, it is argued that Hyman, against his inclination, is committed to the existence of such an analysis. Thirdly, synthesising insights from Hyman and Davidson, an analysis of intentional explanations in dispositional terms is proposed and defended against putative counterexamples.","PeriodicalId":46014,"journal":{"name":"Philosophical Explorations","volume":"25 1","pages":"75 - 87"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hyman on intentional explanations and the problem of deviant causal chains\",\"authors\":\"Elia Haemmerli\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13869795.2021.1980604\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Intentional explanations are explanations of actions that specify the motive for which the action was done. A central question is whether causality plays a role in such explanations. Causalists insist that it does. One of the most pressing problems for Causalism is often taken to be the possibility that what an agent does is caused by her motive despite the agent not acting intentionally. This is known as the problem of deviant causal chains. Recently, Causalism has received a new defence by Hyman, which includes a treatment of the problem of deviant causal chains. This paper assesses Hyman’s account by focusing on its commitments. First, to get a clear view of the relation between Causalism and the problem of deviant causal chains it distinguishes the question whether intentional explanations are causal explanations from the question whether they admit of an analysis in causal terms. Secondly, it is argued that Hyman, against his inclination, is committed to the existence of such an analysis. Thirdly, synthesising insights from Hyman and Davidson, an analysis of intentional explanations in dispositional terms is proposed and defended against putative counterexamples.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46014,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophical Explorations\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"75 - 87\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophical Explorations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13869795.2021.1980604\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"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":"Philosophical Explorations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13869795.2021.1980604","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

摘要

意向性解释是对行为的解释,具体说明行为的动机。一个核心问题是因果关系是否在这种解释中发挥作用。因果论者坚持认为确实如此。因果关系论最紧迫的问题之一通常被认为是,尽管代理人并非故意行事,但代理人所做的事情可能是由她的动机引起的。这就是所谓的异常因果链问题。最近,因果论得到了海曼的新辩护,其中包括对异常因果链问题的处理。本文通过关注海曼的承诺来评估其账目。首先,为了清楚地理解因果主义与偏离因果链问题之间的关系,它将有意解释是否是因果解释的问题与是否承认因果分析的问题区分开来。其次,有人认为海曼违背自己的意愿,致力于这种分析的存在。第三,综合Hyman和Davidson的见解,提出了对倾向术语中的有意解释的分析,并针对假定的反例进行了辩护。
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
Hyman on intentional explanations and the problem of deviant causal chains
ABSTRACT Intentional explanations are explanations of actions that specify the motive for which the action was done. A central question is whether causality plays a role in such explanations. Causalists insist that it does. One of the most pressing problems for Causalism is often taken to be the possibility that what an agent does is caused by her motive despite the agent not acting intentionally. This is known as the problem of deviant causal chains. Recently, Causalism has received a new defence by Hyman, which includes a treatment of the problem of deviant causal chains. This paper assesses Hyman’s account by focusing on its commitments. First, to get a clear view of the relation between Causalism and the problem of deviant causal chains it distinguishes the question whether intentional explanations are causal explanations from the question whether they admit of an analysis in causal terms. Secondly, it is argued that Hyman, against his inclination, is committed to the existence of such an analysis. Thirdly, synthesising insights from Hyman and Davidson, an analysis of intentional explanations in dispositional terms is proposed and defended against putative counterexamples.
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
1.20
自引率
16.70%
发文量
29
期刊最新文献
See what I didn’t do there? Mental illness, exemption & moral exclusion: the role of interpretative generosity Let’s not get ahead of ourselves: we have no idea if moral reasoning causes moral progress Bringing transparency to the de se debates Life and meaning
×
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