According to John Broome, akrasia consists in a failure to intend to do something that one believes one ought to do, and such akrasia is necessarily irrational. In fact, however, failing to intend something that one believes one ought to do is only guaranteed to be irrational if one is certain of a maximally detailed proposition about what one ought to do; if one is uncertain about any part of the full story about what one ought to do, it could be perfectly rational not to intend to do something that one believes one ought to do. This paper seeks to remedy this problem, by proposing an anti-akrasia principle that covers cases of uncertainty (as well as cases of such complete certainty). It is argued that this principle is in effect the fundamental principle of practical rationality., Podle Johna Broome, akrasia spočívá v selhání v úmyslu udělat něco, co člověk věří, kdo by měl dělat, a takové akrasia nutně iracionální. Ve skutečnosti se však nedaří v úmyslu něco, co člověk věří, kdo by měl udělat, je zaručeno, že iracionální, pokud je jen jistá o maximálně podrobným tvrzením o tom, co kdo měl dělat; pokud si člověk není jistý, jakou část celého příběhu by měl udělat, mohlo by to být naprosto rozumné, kdybychom neměli v úmyslu dělat něco, co by člověk věřil. Tento dokument se snaží tento problém napravit tím, že navrhne protiarasiizásada, která se vztahuje na případy nejistoty (jakož i případy takové úplné jistoty). Tvrdí se, že tato zásada je ve skutečnosti základním principem praktické racionality., and Ralph Wedgwood
In this paper, I will discuss boulesic and deontic logic and the relationship between these branches of logic. By ‘boulesic logic,’ or ‘the logic of the will,’ I mean a new kind of logic that deals with ‘boulesic’ concepts, expressions, sentences, arguments and systems. I will concentrate on two types of boulesic expression: ‘individual x wants it to be the case that’ and ‘individual x accepts that it is the case that.’ These expressions will be symbolised by two sentential operators that take individuals and sentences as arguments and give sentences as values. Deontic logic is a relatively well-established branch of logic. It deals with normative concepts, sentences, arguments and systems. In this paper, I will show how deontic logic can be grounded in boulesic logic. I will develop a set of semantic tableau systems that include boulesic and alethic operators, possibilist quantifiers and the identity predicate; I will then show how these systems can be augmented by a set of deontic operators. I use a kind of possible world semantics to explain the intended meaning of our formal systems. Intuitively, we can think of our semantics as a description of the structure of a perfectly rational will. I mention some interesting theorems that can be proved in our systems, including some versions of the so-called hypothetical imperative. Finally, I show that all systems that are described in this paper are sound and complete with respect to their semantics.
This article seeks to interpret moral facts as facts of life using the cognitivist naturalist approach set out by Philippa Foot in her Natural Goodness. It outlines the main features of the non-cognitivist rejection of the existence and observability of moral facts. It then reconstructs Foot’s conception of the natural normativity that is articulated in natural historical judgements, which can then be used to define a good or a defective individual with regard to what is exemplary of a life form. Hence Foot highlights a type of evaluation that is not dependent on our pro/con attitudes or emotional states. Practical rationality is tied up with the word ‘good’, which obtains its content from manifestations of the human life form and is aimed at the good life. This article shows that it is only in spheres that directly or indirectly concern life that it makes sense to talk of moral goodness or badness and that facts of life are moral facts.
In this paper I intend to defend Broome’s cognitivist view that reduces practical normativity to theoretical normativity, but argue that this leaves unaccounted for distinctively practical norms that I seek to capture as a system of local obligations to have particular intentions. The krasia requirement dictates what obligations we have relative to the normative beliefs that we have but does not tell us what intentions it is rational to have all-things-considered., V této práci zamýšlím obhájit Broomeův kognitivistický pohled, který redukuje praktickou normativnost na teoretickou normativitu, ale argumentuje tím, že tyto listy nezohledňují výrazně praktické normy, které se snažím zachytit jako systém místních povinností, které mají konkrétní záměry. Požadavek krasia diktuje, jaké povinnosti máme ve vztahu k normativním názorům, které máme, ale neříká nám, jaké úmysly je racionální mít všechny věci., and David Botting