{"title":"Why Be Rational?","authors":"Nicholas Waghorn","doi":"10.1007/s12136-022-00530-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The question ‘Why be rational?’ could be calling into question a commitment to respond to the requirements of subjective rationality, or could be calling into question a commitment to respond to objective reasons. I examine the question in this second sense, placing it in the mouth of the arationalist — an individual who has not ruled out the possibility of not acting or believing on the basis of objective reasons. In evaluating responses to the arationalist’s question, I consider the replies of three philosophers, where these exemplify a shared conceptual strategy: to claim that reasons-responsiveness is self-justifying. I argue that each reply fails, and that the overall strategy is not only dialectically ineffective against the arationalist but is also ineffective even for the goal of reassuring those already committed to reasons-responsiveness. The question ‘Why be rational?’ is yet to be answered, and so a commitment to respond to objective reasons is ungrounded.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":44390,"journal":{"name":"Acta Analytica-International Periodical for Philosophy in the Analytical Tradition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12136-022-00530-3.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Analytica-International Periodical for Philosophy in the Analytical Tradition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12136-022-00530-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The question ‘Why be rational?’ could be calling into question a commitment to respond to the requirements of subjective rationality, or could be calling into question a commitment to respond to objective reasons. I examine the question in this second sense, placing it in the mouth of the arationalist — an individual who has not ruled out the possibility of not acting or believing on the basis of objective reasons. In evaluating responses to the arationalist’s question, I consider the replies of three philosophers, where these exemplify a shared conceptual strategy: to claim that reasons-responsiveness is self-justifying. I argue that each reply fails, and that the overall strategy is not only dialectically ineffective against the arationalist but is also ineffective even for the goal of reassuring those already committed to reasons-responsiveness. The question ‘Why be rational?’ is yet to be answered, and so a commitment to respond to objective reasons is ungrounded.
期刊介绍：
Acta Analytica is an international journal for philosophy in the analytical tradition covering a variety of philosophical topics including philosophical logic, metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of science and philosophy of mind. Special attention is devoted to cognitive science. The journal aims to promote a rigorous, argument-based approach in philosophy. Acta Analytica is a peer reviewed journal, published quarterly, with authors from all over the world.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
