Movatterモバイル変換

Some of our reasons for acting are grounded precisely on the fact that we are not fully virtuous agents. This shows that the intuitive view that what we should do is what a virtuous person would do in the circumstances we find ourselves is false. Many take this to show that there is not a close connection between virtue and practical reasons. I hold that this is a mistake. I argue that a failure to act in light of a decisive (...) reason always amounts to a flaw from the standpoint of virtue. This is the case even when it comes to reasons grounded in defects of character. The upshot is that our conception of virtue constraints the normative judgments we can accept. That is the case because every reason must be grounded in a value that is compatible with virtue. I conclude that even though we should not always act as a virtuous person, we should always act in response to values that a virtuous person could uphold. (shrink)

No categories

Direct download(3 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

RESUMO Defendo uma versão de sentimentalismo avaliativo segundo a qual (i) respostas afetivas são aparências de valor e (ii) juízos de valor podem repudiar ou assentir a essas aparências. O ponto de partida do meu argumento é a concepção enativa de afetividade de Giovanna Colombetti. De acordo com Colombetti, um ser afetivo é um que, por meio de sua atividade de produção de sentido, traça distinções significativas, permeadas de valores e, assim, produz um Umwelt (isto é, um ambiente que tem (...) um significado específico para ele). Os elementos desse Umwelt impactam o ser afetivo como significativos e ser assim impactado é ter uma resposta afetiva. Nesse sentido, respostas afetivas podem ser caracterizadas como aparências de valor. Sustento que as aparências de valor são melhor compreendidas como percepções de affordances. Essa tese tem consequências para nossa compreensão de juízos de valor. Os conceitos avaliativos que são relevantes para nós devem corresponder a distinções que são significativas para nós. Assim, conceitos avaliativos relevantes devem capturar o significado de elementos do Umwelt que afetam o organismo. O resultado é que o significado que juízos de valor atribuem a seus objetos pode coincidir com o significado com o qual o objeto nos é apresentado em uma resposta afetiva. (shrink)

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

We conceive of ourselves as capable of acting in response to normative reasons. Given that normative reasons are facts, this self-conception entails that we are capable of acting in response to facts. Arguments from error cases might seem to force us to deflate this self-conception, for they seem to show that to act in light of a fact must simply be a way of acting in light of a belief. The starting point of this paper is the rejection of this (...) deflationary view. In order to reject the argument from error cases, we should adopt a disjunctive view of motivating reasons. According to this view there are two distinct ways of acting in light of a consideration: acting in light of a fact and acting in light of a belief. Disjunctivism about motivating reasons, however, is the target of a skeptical challenge grounded in a cognitivist account of the mind. According to this account, cognition is to explained in terms of the manipulation of representations and there is no meaningful difference between acting in light of a fact and acting in light of a belief: in both cases, one decides in light of a representation. The goal of this paper is to defend disjunctivism from this objection. In order to do so I appeal to Gibson’s ecological psychology. I argue that the ecological account of perception allows us to hold that in the case of actions guided by perception we act in light of the facts themselves (not representations of those facts) and that the same approach can be extended to cover cases in which we act in light of sensorily unavailable facts. (shrink)

No categories

Direct download(3 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

Neste artigo considero e rejeito uma leitura não-cognitivista do sentimentalismo moral de Hume (segundo a qual ele identifica convicções morais com impressões de um tipo particular) bem como uma leitura disposicionalista (segundo a qual Hume concebe convicções morais como crenças causais a respeito do poder de traços de caráter de produzir certos sentimentos em espectadores apropriados). Sustento que as falhas dessas leituras mostram que Hume é mais bem compreendido como um teórico do erro, de acordo com quem embora convicções morais (...) sejam crenças elas jamais são verdadeiras. Em contraste com teorias do erro contemporâneas, contudo, a tese de Hume não se baseia em uma alegação metafísica para efeito de que não há propriedades morais. Antes, ele sustenta que ideias morais não são ideias de qualidades que possam ser corretamente predicadas de ações ou traços de caráter, mas ideias de sentimentos e que, portanto, crenças morais incorporam sistematicamente um erro categorial. AbstractIn this paper I consider and reject a noncognitivist reading of Hume’ s moral sentimentalism (according to which he identifies moral convictions with impressions of particular kind) as well as a dispositional reading (according to which Hume takes moral convictions to be causal beliefs about the power of character traits to produce certain feelings in suitable spectators). I argue that the shortcomings of these views show that Hume is best understood as an error theorist, according to whom although moral convictions are beliefs they are never true. In contrast with contemporary error theories, however, Hume’s view is not grounded on a metaphysical claim to the effect that there are no moral properties. He holds instead that moral ideas are not at all ideas of qualities that could be truthfully predicated of actions or character traits but rather ideas of feelings and, therefore, that moral beliefs systematically incorporate a category error. (shrink)

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

Non-naturalists about the normative face the problem of providing a metaphysical explanation for the supervenience of the normative on the natural. Recently, Gideon Rosen has argued that non-naturalists can side-step this problem by rejecting strong supervenience and the view that normative truths are metaphysically necessary. Rosen proposes to take normative truths to be normatively necessary, where normative necessity is different from and irreducible to metaphysical necessity. I argue that if Rosen is right, that creates a deeper problem for robust ethical (...) realism (the view that there are mind-independent, non-natural moral facts). According to robust ethical realism, it is a normative fact that persons are an especially valuable kind of being. But if Rosen is right, that is a metaphysically contingent fact. The existence of persons is also contingent. According to robust ethical realism, then, there is a striking match between what the normative facts happen to be and the kinds of beings that happen to exist. Persons could have failed to exist and they could have failed to be valuable, but it just so happens to be a fact about the natural world that they exist and a normative fact that they have value. Given that this match is accidental, it amounts to a miraculous coincidence. To the extent that commitment to unexplained coincidences counts against a view, robust ethical realism faces a problem. (shrink)

No categories

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

Paragraphs §§ 108-133 of Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations seems to contain reminders about what we should and should not do when we do philosophy: we should neither present theories (§109) nor interfere with the actual use of language (§124); we should, on the other hand, bring the words back from their metaphysical use to their everyday use (§116) and simply present things, without explaining them (§126). But if the correct way of doing philosophy is just to describe what lies open to (...) view, what justifies those normative considerations? If everything he has to offer are descriptions, how can he make considerations about philosophy to which the philosophical tradition apparently does not comply? We will argue that these passages do contain methodological recommendations. Those, however, are not the immediate result of the application of the method, i.e., they are not something we discover about philosophy by employing the method itself. The methodological considerations are justified because they are the result of a reliable process of deliberation. What makes the deliberative process reliable is the fact that the application of the method provides us with an accurate description of the goal that the philosophical practice traditionally has in view, thus enabling us to deliberate correctly. (shrink)

No categories

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

I present an objection to robust ethical realism, the view that there are mind-independent moral facts with normative import. I argue that if we combine robust ethical realism with a traditional conception of morality, according to which persons are especially relevant from a moral point of view, the result is that there is a remarkable coincidence between the content of normative facts and the kind of beings that actually exist. On the one hand, the normative facts single out persons as (...) anespecially relevant kind of being and, on the other hand, persons happen to exist. This match amounts to a coincidence because, according to robust ethical realism, normative facts cannot explain why there are persons and the fact that there are persons cannot explain why the normative facts are what they are. To the extent that commitment to unexplained coincidences counts against a view, robust ethical realism faces a problem. Although there are important similarities between this objection and other objections to normative realism that appeal to remarkable coincidences (such as Street’s evolutionary debunking argument and Bedke’s cosmic coincidence argument), I argue that the moral coincidence poses a different problem for robust ethical realism. (shrink)

No categories

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

The Southern Journal of Philosophy, EarlyView.

No categories

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark  

ABSTRACT Moral Naturalism is the view that moral judgments aim at describing moral facts and that these are ordinary garden-variety natural facts. Moral Naturalism has trouble accounting for the intuition that we cannot outsource moral judgments, i.e., we cannot ground a moral conviction that p on the fact that a reliable moral adviser holds that p. There have been, however, several attempts to explain this intuition away or to discredit the intuition pumps that bring it forward. I argue that moral (...) naturalists are not in a position to deny this intuition. Moral Naturalism embodies a conception of the minimal conditions for someone to qualify as capable of making moral judgments; among these conditions is the acknowledgment of the supervenience of the moral on the non-moral; given the naturalist's conception of what it takes for someone to be capable of moral judgment, if we allow agents to outsource their moral judgments we come to situations in which the convictions of moral agents do not comply with the acknowledgment of moral supervenience. The naturalist must, therefore, deny the possibility of moral outsourcing. Moral Naturalism, then, faces the problem of making sense of the ban on moral outsourcing. (shrink)

No categories

Direct download(4 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

Kant has often been accused of being a phenomenalist, i.e., of reducing spatial objects to representations that exist only in our minds. I argue against this reading. Given Kant’s claim that appearances are mere representations, the only way to avoid the accusation of phenomenalism is to provide an alternative conception of “representation” according to which the claim that something is a mere representation does not entail that it is a mere mental item. I offer evidence that Kant does not conceive (...) of representations as mental items and outline an alternative conception of representations. (shrink)

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark  

No categories

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark  

ABSTRACT It is commonly held that the goals at which an action aims are specified by the pro-attitude/belief pairs in light of which the action seems appealing to the agent. I argue that the existence of multiple-incentives cases shows this thesis to be false. In order to account for such cases we have to ascribe to agents the capacity to actively determine the goals at which their actions aim. I refer to this capacity as the agent’s “will”. Agents endowed with (...) a will are capable not only of determining their own behavior but also their motives. I conclude that the existence of multiple-incentives cases shows that agents have this capacity. RESUMO É comumente sustentado que os fins visados por uma ação são especificados pelos pares atitude/crença à luz dos quais a ação parece atrativa para o agente. Eu argumento que a existência de casos de múltiplos incentivos mostra que essa tese é falsa. De maneira a dar conta desses casos devemos atribuir a agentes a capacidade de determinar ativamente os fins visados por suas ações. Refiro-me a essa capacidade como a “vontade” do agente. Agentes dotados de vontade são capazes não apenas de determinar seu próprio comportamento mas também seus motivos. Concluo que a existência de casos de incentivos múltiplos mostra que agentes têm essa capacidade. (shrink)

Direct download(3 more)   Export citation   Bookmark