On the other hand, if something is actually known, then it categorically cannot be false. For example, if a person believes that a bridge is safe enough to support her, and attempts to cross it, but the bridge then collapses under her weight, it could be said that she believed that the bridge was safe but that her belief was mistaken. It would not be accurate to say that she knew that the bridge was safe, because plainly it was not. By contrast, if the bridge actually supported her weight, then the person might say that she had believed the bridge was safe, whereas now, after proving it to herself by crossing itshe knows it was safe.
Both the retrospective and prospective uses also raise the relation between legal and moral responsibility. Many important theories of responsibility relate to legal concerns, which will be discussed in a later section.
As we pursue these topics, there is also the difficulty of seeing how they interrelate, so that it makes sense that we use the same word to raise each issue. The discussion begins with the topics which philosophers have most often discussed: Moral Agency Normal human adults represent our paradigm case of responsible agents.
What is distinctive about them, that we accord them this status? Thinking of retrospective responsibility in particular, why can be held accountable for their actions — justly praised or blamed, deservedly punished or rewarded?
The philosophical literature has explored three broad approaches to moral agency: Human beings have free will, that is, distinctive causal powers or a special metaphysical status, that separate them from everything else in the universe; Human beings can act on the basis of reason s ; Human beings have a certain set of moral or proto-moral feelings.
The first approach, although historically important, has largely been discredited by the success of modern science. Science provides, or promises, naturalistic explanations of such phenomena as the evolution of the human species and the workings of the brain.
Almost all modern philosophers approach responsibility as compatibilists — that is, they assume that moral responsibility must be compatible with causal or naturalistic explanation of human thought and action, and therefore reject the metaphysical idea of free will.
There can be terminological confusion here.
Among modern compatibilists, a contest remains, however, between the second and third approaches — positions that are essentially Kantian and Humean in inspiration.
It is indisputable, however, that our rationality is at the centre of his picture of moral agency.
Kant himself does not speak of responsibility — the word was only just coming into the language of his day — but he does have much to say about imputation Zurechnungthat is, the basis on which actions are imputed to a person.
Kant was principally concerned with evaluation of the self. Although he occasionally mentions blame mutual accountabilityhis moral theory is really about the basis on which a person treats herself as responsible. The core of his answer is that a rational agent chooses to act in the light of principles — that is, we deliberate among reasons.
Therefore standards of rationality apply to us, and when we fail to act rationally this is, simply and crudely, a Bad Thing. It is important to be aware that Kant sees reason as having moral content, so that there is a failure of rationality involved when we do something immoral — for instance, by pursuing our self-interest at the expense of others.
Even if we sometimes feel no inclination to take account of others, reason still tells us that we should, and can motivate us to do so. David Hume denied that reason can provide us with moral guidance, or the motivation to act morally. He is famous for his claim that "Reason is wholly inactive, and can never be the source of so active a principle as conscience, or a sense of morals" A Treatise of Human Nature, book 3, part 1, sect.
If we are moral agents, this is because we are equipped with certain tendencies to feel or desire, dispositions that make it seem rational to us to act and think morally.Dear Twitpic Community - thank you for all the wonderful photos you have taken over the years.
We have now placed Twitpic in an archived state. Much debate in epistemology centers on four areas: (1) the philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and how it relates to such concepts as truth, belief, and justification, (2) various problems of skepticism, (3) the sources and scope of knowledge and justified belief, and (4) the criteria for knowledge and justification.
Home Features The List The Top 15 Philosophical Songs. real gone,” enacting the literal meaning of ecstasy, which is to be “out of the stasis” and in . A similar argument holds that it is conceivable (or not inconceivable) that there could be physical duplicates of people, called "philosophical zombies", without any qualia at alphabetnyc.com "zombies" would demonstrate outward behavior precisely similar to that of a normal human, but would not have a subjective phenomenology.
Grid Girls: A Philosophical Analysis. Posted by Min on 4th there are always reasons for disappointment, especially if it’s your job that’s gone. But to use an analogy, when a factory closes, although people may try to keep it open for various reasons, it never seems to be on the grounds that it was the workers’ “free choice” to.
Over 15, copies downloaded! This is a quick and easy way to learn the basic philosophy and theology of Saint Thomas Aquinas. The Popes of the last years have endorsed St Thomas Aquinas.