Circular Definitions of ‘Good’ and the Good of Circular Definitions

IF 1 2区哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice Pub Date : 2024-03-19 DOI:10.1007/s10677-024-10439-y

Andrés G. Garcia

引用次数: 0

Abstract

I defend the view that circular definitions can be useful and illuminating by focusing on the fitting-attitudes analysis of value. This definition states that an item has value if and only if it is a fitting target of attitudes. Good items are the fitting targets of positive attitudes, and bad items are the fitting targets of negative ones. I shall argue that a circular version of this definition, defended by Rabinowicz and Rønnow-Rasmussen (2006), is preferable to its non-circular counterpart and upholds reasonable standards of acceptability. The standards I will be discussing come from Humberstone (1997), who claims that definitions cannot be informative as long as they are inferentially circular.

查看原文本刊更多论文

善 "的循环定义与循环定义之善

我将重点放在对价值的 "适合态度 "分析上，以此捍卫循环定义是有用的、有启发性的这一观点。该定义指出，当且仅当一件物品是态度的契合目标时，它才具有价值。好的物品是积极态度的契合目标，而坏的物品则是消极态度的契合目标。我将论证拉比诺维奇和朗诺-拉斯穆森（Rønnow-Rasmussen，2006 年）所捍卫的这一定义的循环版本比其非循环版本更可取，并且坚持了合理的可接受性标准。我将讨论的标准来自 Humberstone（1997 年），他认为只要定义在推论上是循环的，那么定义就不可能具有信息性。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice PHILOSOPHY-

CiteScore

1.90

自引率

10.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Ethical Theory and Moral Practice is a double-anonymous peer-reviewed philosophical journal which aims to publish the best work produced in all fields of practical philosophy. It welcomes high-quality, rigorous and original, submissions regardless of the traditions or schools of thought from which they derive. As an editorial priority, however, published papers should be accessible to the philosophical community at large and as free as possible of unnecessary jargon. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice publishes work on ethical theories that address practical problems, as well as work that presents or examines empirical findings regarding moral practices relevant for ethical theorizing. The journal therefore actively seeks to promote cross-fertilization across areas of practical philosophy—such as moral, political, legal, and social philosophy—and more empirical disciplines, such as medicine, economics, sociology, political science, and psychology. It welcomes work in applied ethics provided that it can offer theoretical or normative contributions to larger philosophical debates. The journal also considers historically-oriented contributions provided they are not mainly exegetical and can offer insights for current debates in practical philosophy. The journal endorses the BPA/ SWIP-UK Good Practice for Journals. Further details are available in our Review Policy document.