信仰责任的两面

IF 1.7 2区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
Giulia Luvisotto
{"title":"信仰责任的两面","authors":"Giulia Luvisotto","doi":"10.1017/can.2023.13","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The conception of responsibility for beliefs typically assumed in the literature mirrors the practices of accountability for actions. In this paper, I argue that this trend leaves a part of what it is to be responsible unduly neglected, namely the practices of attributability. After offering a diagnosis for this neglect, I bring these practices into focus and develop a virtue-theoretic framework to vindicate them. I then investigate the specificity of the belief case and conclude by resisting two challenges, namely that attributability cannot amount to genuine responsibility and that it can be reduced to a sort of accountability.","PeriodicalId":51573,"journal":{"name":"CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Two Faces of Responsibility for Beliefs\",\"authors\":\"Giulia Luvisotto\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/can.2023.13\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The conception of responsibility for beliefs typically assumed in the literature mirrors the practices of accountability for actions. In this paper, I argue that this trend leaves a part of what it is to be responsible unduly neglected, namely the practices of attributability. After offering a diagnosis for this neglect, I bring these practices into focus and develop a virtue-theoretic framework to vindicate them. I then investigate the specificity of the belief case and conclude by resisting two challenges, namely that attributability cannot amount to genuine responsibility and that it can be reduced to a sort of accountability.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51573,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/can.2023.13\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"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":"CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/can.2023.13","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

文献中通常假设的信念责任概念反映了行为责任的实践。在这篇论文中,我认为这种趋势留下了一部分不适当地被忽视的责任,即可归因性的实践。在为这种忽视提供了诊断之后,我将这些实践集中起来,并建立了一个美德理论框架来证明它们的正确性。然后,我调查了信仰案例的特殊性,并通过抵制两个挑战得出结论,即归属性不能构成真正的责任,它可以归结为一种责任。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Two Faces of Responsibility for Beliefs
The conception of responsibility for beliefs typically assumed in the literature mirrors the practices of accountability for actions. In this paper, I argue that this trend leaves a part of what it is to be responsible unduly neglected, namely the practices of attributability. After offering a diagnosis for this neglect, I bring these practices into focus and develop a virtue-theoretic framework to vindicate them. I then investigate the specificity of the belief case and conclude by resisting two challenges, namely that attributability cannot amount to genuine responsibility and that it can be reduced to a sort of accountability.
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
2.40
自引率
11.10%
发文量
16
×
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