Skip to main content Accesibility Help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
Cancel
×
×
Home
  • Home
Article

Figuring Out How to Proceed with Evaluation After Figuring Out What Matters

  • CHRISOULA ANDREOU (a1)
Abstract

I focus on David Gauthier’s intriguing suggestion that actions are not to be evaluated directly but via an evaluation of deliberative procedures. I argue that this suggestion is misleading, since even the most direct evaluation of (intentional) actions involves the evaluation of different ways of deliberating about what to do. Relatedly, a complete picture of what an agent is or might be (intentionally) doing cannot be disentangled from a complete picture of how s/he is or might be deliberating. A more viable contrast concerns whether actions and deliberative procedures are properly evaluated on the whole or, instead, through time.

Dans cet article, je concentre mon attention sur l’intrigante suggestion de David Gauthier voulant que les actions ne doivent pas être évaluées directement, mais par le biais d’une évaluation des procédures délibératives. Je soutiens qu’il s’agit d’une fausse piste, car même l’évaluation la plus directe d’actions (intentionnelles) implique l’évaluation de différentes façons de délibérer sur la conduite à tenir. De façon connexe, on ne peut dresser un portrait complet de ce qu’un agent fait ou pourrait faire (intentionnellement) en faisant abstraction du portrait complet de la façon dont il ou elle délibère ou pourrait délibérer. Il est plus viable de se demander si les actions et les procédures délibératives sont évaluées correctement en entier ou, plutôt, à travers le temps.

Copyright
COPYRIGHT: © Canadian Philosophical Association 2016 
Corresponding author
*<c.andreou@utah.edu>
References
Hide All
Andreou, Chrisoula 2014 “The Good, the Bad, and the Trivial,” Philosophical Studies 169 (2), 209–225.
Andreou, Chrisoula 2009 “Taking On Intentions,” Ratio 22 (2), 157–169.
Andreou, Chrisoula 2006a “Temptation and Deliberation,” Philosophical Studies 131 (3), 583–606.
Andreou, Chrisoula 2006b “Might Intentions Be the Only Source of Practical Imperatives,” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 9 (3), 311–325.
Bratman, Michael 1987 Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Gauthier, David 2013 “Twenty-Five On,” Ethics 123 (4), 601–624.
Gauthier, David 1998 “Rethinking the Toxin Puzzle,” in Coleman, J.L. and Morris, C.W. (eds.), Rational Commitment and Social Justice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 47–58.
Gauthier, David 1994 “Assure and Threaten,” Ethics 104 (4), 690–721.
Gauthier, David 1986 Morals by Agreement, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Kavka, Gregory 1983 “The Toxin Puzzle,” Analysis 43, 33–36.
MacIntosh, Duncan 1991 “Preference’s Progress,” Dialogue 30 (1–2), 3–32.
Superson, Anita 2009 The Moral Skeptic, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thompson, Michael 2008 Life and Action, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Velleman, David 2000 “Deciding How to Decide,” in The Possibility of Practical Reason, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 221–243.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie
  • ISSN: 0012-2173
  • EISSN: 1759-0949
  • URL: /core/journals/dialogue-canadian-philosophical-review-revue-canadienne-de-philosophie
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *

CAPTCHA *

Skip to the audio challenge
×

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed

Cancel
Confirm
×