出于道义原因的高内涵逻辑框架

Log. J. IGPL Pub Date : 2019-07-25 DOI:10.1093/JIGPAL/JZZ012
Federico L. G. Faroldi, Tudor Protopopescu
{"title":"出于道义原因的高内涵逻辑框架","authors":"Federico L. G. Faroldi, Tudor Protopopescu","doi":"10.1093/JIGPAL/JZZ012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In this paper we argue that normative reasons are hyperintensional and put forward a formal account of this thesis. That reasons are hyperintensional means that a reason for a proposition does not imply that it is also a reason for a logically equivalent proposition. In the first part we consider three arguments for the hyperintensionality of reasons: (i) an argument from the nature of reasons, (ii) an argument from substitutivity and (iii) an argument from explanatory power. In the second part we describe a hyperintensional logic of reasons based on justification logics. Eventually we discuss the philosophical import of this proposal and highlight some limitations and possible developments.","PeriodicalId":304915,"journal":{"name":"Log. J. IGPL","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"14","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A hyperintensional logical framework for deontic reasons\",\"authors\":\"Federico L. G. Faroldi, Tudor Protopopescu\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/JIGPAL/JZZ012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n In this paper we argue that normative reasons are hyperintensional and put forward a formal account of this thesis. That reasons are hyperintensional means that a reason for a proposition does not imply that it is also a reason for a logically equivalent proposition. In the first part we consider three arguments for the hyperintensionality of reasons: (i) an argument from the nature of reasons, (ii) an argument from substitutivity and (iii) an argument from explanatory power. In the second part we describe a hyperintensional logic of reasons based on justification logics. Eventually we discuss the philosophical import of this proposal and highlight some limitations and possible developments.\",\"PeriodicalId\":304915,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Log. J. IGPL\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-07-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"14\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Log. J. IGPL\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/JIGPAL/JZZ012\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Log. J. IGPL","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/JIGPAL/JZZ012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

摘要

在本文中,我们认为规范性原因是高内涵的,并提出了这一论点的正式说明。理由是高内涵的意思是一个命题的理由并不意味着它也是一个逻辑等价命题的理由。在第一部分中,我们考虑了三个关于原因高强度性的论点:(i)一个来自原因本质的论点,(ii)一个来自可替代性的论点,(iii)一个来自解释力的论点。第二部分描述了一种基于证明逻辑的超内涵推理逻辑。最后,我们讨论了这一建议的哲学意义,并强调了一些局限性和可能的发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A hyperintensional logical framework for deontic reasons
In this paper we argue that normative reasons are hyperintensional and put forward a formal account of this thesis. That reasons are hyperintensional means that a reason for a proposition does not imply that it is also a reason for a logically equivalent proposition. In the first part we consider three arguments for the hyperintensionality of reasons: (i) an argument from the nature of reasons, (ii) an argument from substitutivity and (iii) an argument from explanatory power. In the second part we describe a hyperintensional logic of reasons based on justification logics. Eventually we discuss the philosophical import of this proposal and highlight some limitations and possible developments.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信