“好”解释关于原因的五个谜题

IF 1.6 1区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
S. Finlay
{"title":"“好”解释关于原因的五个谜题","authors":"S. Finlay","doi":"10.1111/phpe.12126","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"What does it mean for something, like the fact that rain is forecast, to be a normative reason for an action like taking your umbrella, or attitude like believing it will rain? According to a popular view, concepts of “reasons” are all concepts of some kind of explanation. But explanations of what? On one way of developing this idea, the concept of a normative reason for an agent S to perform an action A is that of an explanation why it would be good (in some way, to some degree) for S to do A. This Reasons as Explanations of Goodness hypothesis (REG) has numerous virtues and champions. But like every theory of normative reasons it faces some significant challenges, which prompt many more philosophers to be skeptical that it can account for all normative reasons. This paper demonstrates how five different puzzles about normative reasons can be solved by paying attention to the concept of goodness, and observing how it—and consequently, talk about reasons—is sensitive to context. Rather than asking simply whether certain facts are reasons for S to do A, we need to explore how context affects whether it is correct to describe a fact as “a reason” for S to do A.","PeriodicalId":51519,"journal":{"name":"Philosophical Perspectives","volume":"33 1","pages":"62-104"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/phpe.12126","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A “Good” Explanation of Five Puzzles about Reasons\",\"authors\":\"S. Finlay\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/phpe.12126\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"What does it mean for something, like the fact that rain is forecast, to be a normative reason for an action like taking your umbrella, or attitude like believing it will rain? According to a popular view, concepts of “reasons” are all concepts of some kind of explanation. But explanations of what? On one way of developing this idea, the concept of a normative reason for an agent S to perform an action A is that of an explanation why it would be good (in some way, to some degree) for S to do A. This Reasons as Explanations of Goodness hypothesis (REG) has numerous virtues and champions. But like every theory of normative reasons it faces some significant challenges, which prompt many more philosophers to be skeptical that it can account for all normative reasons. This paper demonstrates how five different puzzles about normative reasons can be solved by paying attention to the concept of goodness, and observing how it—and consequently, talk about reasons—is sensitive to context. Rather than asking simply whether certain facts are reasons for S to do A, we need to explore how context affects whether it is correct to describe a fact as “a reason” for S to do A.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51519,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophical Perspectives\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"62-104\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/phpe.12126\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophical Perspectives\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/phpe.12126\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophical Perspectives","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/phpe.12126","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

这意味着什么,比如预测会下雨,成为采取雨伞等行动或相信会下雨等态度的规范理由?根据一种流行的观点,“原因”的概念都是某种解释的概念。但解释什么?在发展这一观点的一种方式中,代理人S执行动作a的规范性理由的概念是解释为什么S做a是好的(在某种程度上)。这种作为善的解释的理由假说(REG)有许多优点和支持者。但就像每一种规范性原因理论一样,它也面临着一些重大挑战,这促使更多的哲学家对它能否解释所有规范性原因持怀疑态度。本文展示了如何通过关注善的概念来解决关于规范性原因的五个不同的谜题,并观察它——以及因此谈论原因——是如何对上下文敏感的。与其简单地问某些事实是否是S做A的原因,我们还需要探究语境如何影响将一个事实描述为S做A“原因”是否正确。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A “Good” Explanation of Five Puzzles about Reasons
What does it mean for something, like the fact that rain is forecast, to be a normative reason for an action like taking your umbrella, or attitude like believing it will rain? According to a popular view, concepts of “reasons” are all concepts of some kind of explanation. But explanations of what? On one way of developing this idea, the concept of a normative reason for an agent S to perform an action A is that of an explanation why it would be good (in some way, to some degree) for S to do A. This Reasons as Explanations of Goodness hypothesis (REG) has numerous virtues and champions. But like every theory of normative reasons it faces some significant challenges, which prompt many more philosophers to be skeptical that it can account for all normative reasons. This paper demonstrates how five different puzzles about normative reasons can be solved by paying attention to the concept of goodness, and observing how it—and consequently, talk about reasons—is sensitive to context. Rather than asking simply whether certain facts are reasons for S to do A, we need to explore how context affects whether it is correct to describe a fact as “a reason” for S to do A.
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
CiteScore
1.50
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信