IF 2.1 1区哲学

NOUS Pub Date : 2021-06-09 DOI: 10.1111/NOUS.12386

W. Davies

引用次数: 4

Kant, moral overdemandingness and self‐scrutiny 康德，道德的过度要求和自我审视

IF 2.1 1区哲学

NOUS Pub Date : 2021-06-01 DOI: 10.1111/NOUS.12308

Martin Sticker

引用次数: 4

Guard against temptation: Intrapersonal team reasoning and the role of intentions in exercising willpower 提防诱惑:团队内部的推理和意图在锻炼意志力中的作用

IF 2.1 1区哲学

NOUS Pub Date : 2021-05-07 DOI: 10.1111/NOUS.12369

Natalie Gold

{"title":"Guard against temptation: Intrapersonal team reasoning and the role of intentions in exercising willpower","authors":"Natalie Gold","doi":"10.1111/NOUS.12369","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/NOUS.12369","url":null,"abstract":"Sometimes we make a decision about an action we will undertake later and form an intention, but our judgment of what it is best to do undergoes a temporary shift when the time for action comes round. What makes it rational not to give in to temptation? Many contempo-rary solutions privilege diachronic rationality; in some “rational non-reconsideration” (RNR) accounts once the agent forms an intention, it is rational not to reconsider. This leads to other puzzles: how can someone be motivated to follow a plan that is contrary to their current judgment? How can it be rational to form a plan to resist if we can predict that our judgment will shift? I show how these puzzles can be solved in a framework where there are multiple units of agency, distinguishing between the judgments of the timeslice and those of the person over time, and allowing that the timeslice can “self identify”, taking the person over time as the resisting or succumbing to temptation can be instrumentally rational, depending on the unit of agency that is identified with. In order to show why we ought to resist temptation, we need to draw on a non-instrumental rationale. I sketch possible routes for doing this.","PeriodicalId":48158,"journal":{"name":"NOUS","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/NOUS.12369","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"63497495","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Higher‐order evidence and losing one's conviction 高阶证据和定罪失败

IF 2.1 1区哲学

NOUS Pub Date : 2021-05-03 DOI: 10.1111/NOUS.12367

L. Henderson

引用次数: 8

An explanatory idealist theory of grounding 一种关于扎根的解释性唯心主义理论

IF 2.1 1区哲学

NOUS Pub Date : 2021-04-12 DOI: 10.1111/NOUS.12368

D. Kovacs

引用次数: 3

Mary Shepherd on the role of proofs in our knowledge of first principles 玛丽·谢泼德关于证明在我们的第一性原理知识中的作用

IF 2.1 1区哲学

NOUS Pub Date : 2021-03-27 DOI: 10.1111/NOUS.12365

M. Folescu

引用次数: 3

The nomological argument for the existence of God 关于上帝存在的法理论证

IF 2.1 1区哲学

NOUS Pub Date : 2021-03-19 DOI: 10.1111/NOUS.12364

Tyler Hildebrand, Thomas Metcalf

{"title":"The nomological argument for the existence of God","authors":"Tyler Hildebrand, Thomas Metcalf","doi":"10.1111/NOUS.12364","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/NOUS.12364","url":null,"abstract":"According to the Nomological Argument, observed regularities in nature are best explained by an appeal to a supernatural being. A successful explanation must avoid two perils. Some explanations provide too little structure, predicting a universe without regularities. Others provide too much structure, thereby precluding an explanation of certain types of lawlike regularities featured in modern scientific theories. We argue that an explanation based in the creative, intentional action of a supernatural being avoids these two perils whereas leading competitors do not. Although our argument falls short of a full defense, it does suggest that the Nomological Argument is worthy of philosophical attention. 1 Sketch of the Nomological Argument According to the Nomological Argument, a supernatural being provides the best explanation of regularities in nature, such as that planets have elliptical orbits, that the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference, and that quantum systems evolve in accordance with the Schrödinger equation. Although we can’t provide a full defense in this paper, we will identify the leading competing hypotheses and argue that Divine Voluntarism—the hypothesis that regularities are explained by a supernatural being— beats them when it comes to two most-crucial explanatory virtues. This at least makes a strong prima facie case for preferring Divine Voluntarism to its leading competitors and clarifies how the Nomological Argument is to be defended. * This is the penultimate draft. The official version: http://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12364 1 Divine Voluntarism has received some recent attention (Foster 2004, Swinburne 2006, Collins 2009a, Orr 2019). However, these discussions have been limited in various respects—","PeriodicalId":48158,"journal":{"name":"NOUS","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/NOUS.12364","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49545170","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 11

Reasoning beyond belief acquisition 超越信念获得的推理

IF 2.1 1区哲学

NOUS Pub Date : 2021-02-23 DOI: 10.1111/NOUS.12363

Daniel Drucker

引用次数: 4

The dual scale model of weighing reasons 称重原因的双秤模型

IF 2.1 1区哲学

NOUS Pub Date : 2021-02-03 DOI: 10.1111/NOUS.12361

C. Tucker

{"title":"The dual scale model of weighing reasons","authors":"C. Tucker","doi":"10.1111/NOUS.12361","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/NOUS.12361","url":null,"abstract":"0. Introduction Ethical theory is steeped in two related metaphors: reasons have weight and reasons are weighed on a balance scale to determine an act’s deontic status (e.g., whether an act is permissible, impermissible, or required). Such metaphors are implicit in the ubiquitous talk of outweighing and the balance of reasons. The ubiquity of these metaphors gives them importance. If we are going to use or reject them, we should understand the best way of cashing them out. We may find, as I argue in this paper, that we can construct a promising model of how reasons interact to determine deontic status simply by cashing them out carefully. I assume that the metaphors of weight and weighing are apt for morality and practical rationality. So understood, substantive moral (rational) theories can make two kinds of mistake. First, a theory might incorrectly weight reasons. Perhaps, for example, it overestimates how much weight morality gives to self-interest. Second, a substantive theory might weigh reasons incorrectly. In principle, a theory might make one kind of mistake without making the other. This paper is after the fundamental model of weighing reasons to determine a deontic status, the model that determines what it is to weigh reasons correctly. Such a model can represent any normative theory that correctly weighs reasons, even if the theory incorrectly weights them. It can’t represent any theory that incorrectly weighs reasons. By identifying what it is to weigh reasons correctly, the fundamental model identifies structural constraints on any substantive moral or rational theory. The metaphor of weighing reasons brings to mind a single (double-pan balance) scale. The reasons for φ (Rφ) go in one pan and the reasons for ~φ (R~φ) go in the other. The relative weights, as indicated by the relative heights of the two sides of the scale, determine the deontic status of the act.","PeriodicalId":48158,"journal":{"name":"NOUS","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/NOUS.12361","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49479749","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 9

Making space for the normativity of coherence 为连贯性的规范性创造空间

IF 2.1 1区哲学

NOUS Pub Date : 2021-02-02 DOI: 10.1111/NOUS.12362

Alex Worsnip

引用次数: 7

NOUS最新文献