The Doing and the Deed: Action in Normative Ethics (original) (raw)
Related papers
Enactivism, action and normativity: a Wittgensteinian analysis
Adaptive Behavior, 2014
In this paper, we offer a criticism, inspired by Wittgenstein’s rule-following considerations, of the enactivist account of perception and action. We start by setting up a non-descriptivist naturalism regarding the mind and continue by defining enactivism and exploring its more attractive theoretical features. We then proceed to analyse its proposal to understand normativity non-socially. We argue that such a thesis is ultimately committed to the problematic idea that normative practices can be understood as private and factual. Finally, we offer a characterization of normativity as an essentially social phenomenon and apply our criticisms to other approaches that share commitments with enactivism.
Ethics and Action Theory: An Unhappy Divorce
Oxford Handbook of Anscombe , 2021
This chapter compares the general form and state of moral philosophy during the first half of the twentieth century (§1) to how it stands today (§3). These two overviews serve as the bread of a GEMA-filled sandwich. In §2 I accordingly consider Anscombe's criticisms of 'modern moral philosophy' from Sidgwick to Ross. Anyone in sympathy with the general line of her criticisms, I argue, must concede that the state of moral philosophy was in far better shape in the decades before she wrote her seminal 1958 paper than it has been ever since. Ironically, contemporary moral philosophy has become what it is partly due to Anscombe's own unintended role in influencing (i) the formation of 'virtue theory' as yet another position within normative ethics, and (ii) the fashioning of 'moral psychology' as an altogether distinct-and increasingly empirical-branch of moral philosophy.
Can action be normative? Some preliminary remarks
Studia Philosophiae Christianae, 2018
This article concerns the problem of the normativity of action. In what sense can we say that actions are normative? Can we explain the normativity of action by reference to some established norms, by a relation to the language-user's knowledge, or through regularities of social practice? Engaging with Robert Brandom, who distinguishes two ways of understanding the relation between rules and their application (regulism and regularism), the author claims that rules are a kind of actions that are normative per se. This view entails that those actions can establish norms and rules of action. Hence, it seems that Brandom's distinction doesn't exhaust the realm of all possible relations between actions and norms.
The Philosophical Forum, 2021
The Duhem-Quine thesis famously holds that a single hypothesis cannot be confirmed or disconfirmed in isolation, but instead only in conjunction with other background hypotheses. This article argues that this has important and underappreciated implications for meta-ethics. Section I argues that if one begins meta-ethical theorizing with a naturalistic worldview, then normativity (including normative moral reasons) will appear to be reducible to a set of psycho-semantic behaviors that, following Dennett’s work on ‘the intentional stance’, I call the normative stance. Section II then addresses potential objections by normative non-naturalists, showing that these objections are unlikely to appeal to naturalists given the latter’s background commitments. I conclude that naturalists should find the normative stance to be a promising theory of normativity, and that to determine whether it is a true theory, we must ascertain which background hypotheses, naturalistic or otherwise, we should have when doing meta-ethics.
Three conceptions of action in moral theory
Nous, 2001
Philosophers have long been interested in the relation between the world and the mind which strives to know it. In this paper I argue that there is also a deep question about the relation between the world and the agent who strives to act in it. The question is not primarily about the ...
Unreflective Action and Moral Normativity
One of the great strengths of recent ethical philosophy is that it has begun to examine anew the relationship between ethics and action. The idea behind this turn to action is intuitive:
The Action-Theoretic Basis of Practical Philosophy
2007
In the philosophical tradition ever since Aristotle theory of action has been regarded as an essential and indispensable basis of the core disciplines of practical philosophy, which should explain, among others, how prudential rationality, moral behaviour, responsibility, freedom or autonomy are possible. We find such explicit action theory underpinnings of their respective ethics or theories of rationality in Aristotle, in Epicurus, in Stoic philosophy or later, in modern times in Locke, in Hume or, to a minor degree, in Kant, Hegel and Schopenhauer to name only a few.
Two Dogmas of Contemporary Philosophy of Action
Davidson’s seminal essay “Actions, Reasons and Causes” brought about a paradigm shift in the philosophy of action. Before Davidson the consensus was that the fundamental task of the philosophy of action was to elucidate the concept of action and the concept of event. After Davidson it has been assumed that the fundamental challenge for the philosophy of action is to answer not the conceptual question “what does it mean to explain something as an action?”, but a metaphysical question, namely, “how is causal over-determination by the mental and the physical possible?” I argue that the two main considerations Davidson provides for construing the question posed by the action/event distinction in metaphysical rather than conceptual terms are inconclusive. To the extent that Davidson’s essay was responsible for this paradigm shift, contemporary philosophy of action may well be said to rest on two unexamined dogmas.