Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-28T23:38:10.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Content-Related and Attitude-Related Reasons for Preferences”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2017

Christian Piller
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the first section of this paper I draw, on a purely conceptual level, a distinction between two kinds of reasons: content-related and attitude-related reasons. The established view is that, in the case of the attitude of believing something, there are no attitude-related reasons. I look at some arguments intended to establish this claim in the second section with an eye to whether these argument could be generalized to cover the case of preferences as well. In the third section I argue against such generalizations and present a case in favour of accepting attitude-related reasons for preferences. In the fourth section I present an objection to which I react in the fifth section where I try to strengthen my case for attitude-related reasons for preferences. Finally, I discuss and reject criticisms raised by two opponents of the view defended here.

Type
Papers
Information
Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements , Volume 59 , December 2006 , pp. 155 - 181
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy and the contributors 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Broome, John, Weighing Goods, Blackwell, Oxford: 1991.Google Scholar
Broome, John, ‘Normative Practical Reasoning’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Suppl. Vol. 75, 2001, 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, Peter, ‘Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility: Comment’, Journal of Political Economy 75, 1976, 765–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankfurt, Harry 1992, ‘On the Usefulness of Final Ends’, repr. in his Necessity, Volition, and Love, Cambridge University press, Cambridge: 1999, 82–94.Google Scholar
Gibbard, Allan, Wise Choices, Apt Feelings, Clarendon Press, Oxford: 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harman, Gilbert 1997, ‘Pragmatism and Reasons for Belief, repr. in his Reasoning, Meaning and Mind, Oxford University press, Oxford: 1999, 93–116.Google Scholar
James, William 1897, The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy, Dover, New York: 1956.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, Richard, ‘Preferences Among Preferences’, Journal of Philosophy 71, 1974, 377–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kavka, Gregory, ‘The Toxin Puzzle’, Analysis 43, 1983, 33–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keynes, John Maynard, A Treatise on Probability, Macmillan, London: 1921.Google Scholar
Nozick, Robert, The Nature of Rationality, Princeton University Press, Princeton: 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, Jonas, ‘Buck-Passing and the Wrong Kind of Reason’, Philosophical Quarterly 54, 2004 295–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owens, David, Reason Without Freedom, Routlegde, London: 2000.Google Scholar
Parfit, Derek, ‘Rationality and Reasons’, in: Egonsson, Dan, Petersson, Bjorn, Josefsson, Jonas, Ronnow-Rasmussen, Toni (Eds), Exploring Practical Philosophy: From Action to Values, Ashgate: 2001. 17–41.Google Scholar
Pettit, Philip, ‘Decision Theory and Folk Psychology’, in Bacharach, M. & Hurley, S. (eds), Foundations of Decision Theory, Blackwell, Oxford: 1991.Google Scholar
Pettit, Philip, ‘Hope and its Place in Mind’, in V. Braithwaite (Ed), Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 592, 2004, pp. 152–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piller, Christian, ‘Doing What is Best’, Philosophical Quarterly 50, 2000, 208–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piller, Christian, ‘Normative Practical Reasoning’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Suppl. Vol. 75, 2001, 195–216.Google Scholar
Piller, Christian, ‘Kinds of Practical Reasons: Attitude-Related Reasons and Exclusionary Reasons’, forthcoming in: Miguens, S., Pinto, J. A. and Mauro, C. E., eds., Adas do Encontro Nacional de Filosofia Analitica II, Porto: Porto University, 2005.Google Scholar
Rabinowicz, Wlodek & Ronnow-Rasmussen, Toni, ‘The Strike of the Demon: On Fitting Pro-Attitudes and Value’, Ethics 114, 2004, 391–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raz, Joseph, Practical Reason and Norms, 2nd ed, Princeton University Press, Princeton: 1990.Google Scholar
Scanlon, Thomas, What We Owe To Each Other, Harvard University Press, Cambridge/Mass.: 1998.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya, ‘Choice, Orderings and Morality’, in Korner, S. (ed), Practical Reason, Blackwell, Oxford: 1974, 54–67.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya, ‘Rational Fools: A Critique of the Behavioral Foundations of Economic Theory’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 6, 1977, 317–344.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya, 1995, ‘Maximization and the Act of Choice’, in his Rationality and Freedom, Belknap Press, Cambridge/Mass: 2002, 158–205.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya, ‘Introduction: Rationality and Freedom’, in his Rationality and Freedom, Belknap Press, Cambridge/Mass: 2002, 3–64.Google Scholar
Velleman, David, 1996, ‘The Possibility of Practical Reason’, repr. in his The Possibility of Practical Reason, Oxford University Press, Oxford: 2000, 170–199.Google Scholar