Reasons as defaults
著者
書誌事項
Reasons as defaults
Oxford University Press, c2012
大学図書館所蔵 全1件
  青森
  岩手
  宮城
  秋田
  山形
  福島
  茨城
  栃木
  群馬
  埼玉
  千葉
  東京
  神奈川
  新潟
  富山
  石川
  福井
  山梨
  長野
  岐阜
  静岡
  愛知
  三重
  滋賀
  京都
  大阪
  兵庫
  奈良
  和歌山
  鳥取
  島根
  岡山
  広島
  山口
  徳島
  香川
  愛媛
  高知
  福岡
  佐賀
  長崎
  熊本
  大分
  宮崎
  鹿児島
  沖縄
  韓国
  中国
  タイ
  イギリス
  ドイツ
  スイス
  フランス
  ベルギー
  オランダ
  スウェーデン
  ノルウェー
  アメリカ
注記
Includes bibliographical references (p. 241-249) and index
内容説明・目次
内容説明
There has recently been a good deal of discussion of reasons in the philosophical literature, much of it motivated by the idea that the concept of a reason is basic to the normative realm, a fundamental concept in terms of which other normative notions can be analyzed. In this volume, John Horty brings to bear his work in logic to present a framework that allows for answers to key questions about reasons and reasoning, namely: What are reasons, and how do they
support actions or conclusions? Given a collection of individual reasons, possibly suggesting conflicting actions or conclusions, how can we determine which course of action, or which conclusion, is supported by the collection as a whole? What is the mechanism of support?
This book joins an important and active literature, but it also occupies a unique position. Most of the current work on reasons is concerned with a number of complex philosophical issues, such as, for example, the relation between reasons and motivation, desires, and values, the issue of internalism versus externalism in the theory of reasons, and the issue of objectivity versus subjectivity of reasons. Horty's book, by contrast, concentrates on developing a concrete theory of the way in which
reasons might interact to support their outcomes. He brings to the study of reasons and their outcomes the same standards of rigor that Frege first applied in studying the relation between ordinary logical premises and their conclusions.
目次
- Introduction
- I Default logic
- 1 A Primer on Default Logic
- 1.1 Basic concepts
- 1.1.1 Default rules
- 1.1.2 Priority relations
- 1.1.3 Theories and scenarios
- 1.2 Central definitions
- 1.2.1 Binding defaults
- 1.2.2 Proper scenarios and extensions
- 1.3 Extensions and conclusions
- 1.3.1 Theories with multiple extensions
- 1.3.2 Theories without extensions
- 2 From Defaults to Reasons
- 2.1 An austere theory of reasons
- 2.2 Developing the theory
- 2.2.1 Conflict, strength, and defeat
- 2.2.2 Reasons and enablers
- 2.2.3 Reason amalgamation
- II Deontic Logic
- 3 Reasons and Oughts
- 3.1 The two logics
- 3.1.1 Simple oughts
- 3.1.2 Conditional oughts
- 3.1.3 Some history
- 3.2 Properties of the logics
- 4 Moral Conflicts
- 4.1 Logical objections
- 4.1.1 Agglomeration
- 4.1.2 Other logical objections
- 4.2 Conceptual objections
- 4.3 Objections based on reasons as moral forces
- III Some Elaborations
- 5 Variable Priorities and Exclusion
- 5.1 Variable priority default theories
- 5.1.1 The definition
- 5.1.2 Some examples
- 5.2 Exclusionary default theories
- 5.2.1 The definition
- 5.2.2 Some examples
- 5.3 Discussion
- 5.3.1 Downward closure of exclusion
- 5.3.2 Exclusion by weaker defaults
- 5.3.3 Excluders, intensifiers, and attenuators
- 6 Particularism
- 6.1 Dancy's argument
- 6.2 Evaluating the argument
- 6.3 Discussion
- 6.3.1 Pragmatic considerations
- 6.3.2 Borrowing a book
- 6.3.3 Moderate particularism
- IV Some complications
- 7 Skepticism and Floating Conclusions
- 7.1 Floating conclusions
- 7.1.1 Arguments and paths
- 7.1.2 Two versions of skepticism
- 7.2 The problem with floating conclusions
- 7.2.1 An example
- 7.2.2 Objections to the example
- 7.3 Discussion
- 7.3.1 Other examples
- 7.3.2 Skepticism
- 8 Problems with Priorities
- 8.1 Refining the concept of defeat
- 8.2 Controlling the order of application
- 8.3 Discussion
- 8.3.1 Inappropriate equilibria
- 8.3.2 Other orderings
- 8.3.3 Reinstatement
- V Appendices
- A Notes on the default logics
- A.1 Proper scenarios
- A.2 Some observations on defeat
- A.3 Normal default theories
- B Notes on the deontic logics
- B.1 A comparison with van Fraassen's logic
- B.2 A comparison with standard deontic logic
「Nielsen BookData」 より