平等、道德选择和理由权重

IF 1.8 1区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
NOUS Pub Date : 2022-04-17 DOI:10.1111/nous.12410
C. Tucker
{"title":"平等、道德选择和理由权重","authors":"C. Tucker","doi":"10.1111/nous.12410","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The (moral) permissibility of an act is determined by the relative weights of reasons, or so I assume. But how many weights does a reason have? Weight Monism is the idea that reasons have a single weight value. There is just the weight of reasons. Weight Pluralism holds that reasons have at least two weight values and these values aren’t always equivalent. The simplest versions of Weight Monism hold that the weight of each reason is either equal to, weightier than, or less weighty than every other reason. We’ll see that this simple view leads to paradox. We must complicate the picture somehow.","PeriodicalId":48158,"journal":{"name":"NOUS","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Parity, Moral Options, and the Weights of Reasons\",\"authors\":\"C. Tucker\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/nous.12410\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The (moral) permissibility of an act is determined by the relative weights of reasons, or so I assume. But how many weights does a reason have? Weight Monism is the idea that reasons have a single weight value. There is just the weight of reasons. Weight Pluralism holds that reasons have at least two weight values and these values aren’t always equivalent. The simplest versions of Weight Monism hold that the weight of each reason is either equal to, weightier than, or less weighty than every other reason. We’ll see that this simple view leads to paradox. We must complicate the picture somehow.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48158,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"NOUS\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"NOUS\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12410\",\"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":"NOUS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12410","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: 0

摘要

一种行为的(道德)可容许性是由原因的相对权重决定的,至少我是这样认为的。但是一个理由有多少权重呢?权重一元论认为,理由只有一个权重值。原因有很多。权重多元主义认为,理由至少有两个权重值,而这些值并不总是相等的。权重一元论的最简单版本认为,每个原因的权重要么等于其他原因,要么比其他原因更重要,要么比其他原因更重要。我们会看到,这个简单的观点会导致悖论。我们必须设法使情况复杂化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Parity, Moral Options, and the Weights of Reasons
The (moral) permissibility of an act is determined by the relative weights of reasons, or so I assume. But how many weights does a reason have? Weight Monism is the idea that reasons have a single weight value. There is just the weight of reasons. Weight Pluralism holds that reasons have at least two weight values and these values aren’t always equivalent. The simplest versions of Weight Monism hold that the weight of each reason is either equal to, weightier than, or less weighty than every other reason. We’ll see that this simple view leads to paradox. We must complicate the picture somehow.
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
NOUS
NOUS PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.80%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: Noûs, a premier philosophy journal, publishes articles that address the whole range of topics at the center of philosophical debate, as well as long critical studies of important books. Subscribers to Noûs also receive two prestigious annual publications at no additional cost: Philosophical Issues and Philosophical Perspectives.
×
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