Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKeddy, Jared
dc.date.accessioned2010-09-10T17:59:12Z
dc.date.available2010-09-10T17:59:12Z
dc.date.issued2010-09-10
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10222/13064
dc.description.abstractProceduralists about practical rationality and reasons for action argue that practical rationality is only capable of criticizing our reasons for action when, through deliberation, they are reachable through our current beliefs and desires. Using this model of practical rationality, proceduralists also typically argue that the only reasons for action we have are instrumentally valuable ones. Substantivists disagree, however, and argue that practical rationality is capable of criticizing our actions despite our desires, preferences and interests. Substantivists argue that although we have instrumental reasons for action, there are also other reasons for action we have, specific non-instrumental ones, which we are required to act for on pain of irrationality. In this thesis I argue that a substantivist model of practical rationality and reasons for action is correct, and that understanding practical rationality and reasons for action in this way has surprising consequences for moral theory.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subjectPractical Reason, Kant, Hume, Ethics, Meta-Ethicsen_US
dc.titleReason, Reasons, and Reasoningen_US
dc.date.defence2010-09-03
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Philosophyen_US
dc.contributor.degreeMaster of Artsen_US
dc.contributor.external-examinernoneen_US
dc.contributor.graduate-coordinatorMike Hymersen_US
dc.contributor.thesis-readerDarren Abramsonen_US
dc.contributor.thesis-readerKirsten Borgersonen_US
dc.contributor.thesis-supervisorGreg Scherkoskeen_US
dc.contributor.ethics-approvalNot Applicableen_US
dc.contributor.manuscriptsNot Applicableen_US
dc.contributor.copyright-releaseNot Applicableen_US
 Find Full text

Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record