共查询到20条相似文献,搜索用时 0 毫秒
1.
Simon Robertson 《Ethical Theory and Moral Practice》2008,11(3):263-277
A common view of the relation between oughts and reasons is that you ought to do something if and only if that is what you
have most reason to do. One challenge to this comes from what Jonathan Dancy calls ‘enticing reasons.’ Dancy argues that enticing
reasons never contribute to oughts and that it is false that if the only reasons in play are enticing reasons then you ought
to do what you have most reason to do. After explaining how enticing reasons supposedly work and why accepting them may appear
attractive, I firstly show why we are not committed to accepting them into our conceptual framework and then argue that no
reasons work in the way enticing reasons are claimed to. Thus we should reject the category of enticing reasons entirely.
相似文献
Simon RobertsonEmail: |
2.
Topoi - Both because of the vagueness of the word ‘give’ when speaking about giving reasons, and because we lack an adequate definition of ‘reasons’, there is a harmful... 相似文献
3.
4.
Heather Demarest 《Philosophy and phenomenological research》2016,93(3):565-582
If a person, A, branches into B and C, then it is widely held that B and C are not identical to one another. Many think that this is because B and C have contradictory properties at the same time. In this paper, I show why this explanation cannot be right. I argue that contradictory properties at times are not necessary for non‐identity between descendants, and that contradictory properties at times are not sufficient for non‐identity. I also argue that the standard explanation cannot be salvaged by a shift to personal time. Appeals to a lack of continuity, or to the absence of unity of consciousness likewise fail. Rather, B and C are non‐identical simply because A branched into B and C. Why branching should be problematic for personal identity remains a deep puzzle though I offer some tentative suggestions. 相似文献
5.
6.
7.
Purpose
In organizations where work is complex, dynamic and interdependent, maintaining an environment where employees offer help to one another is essential for organizational effectiveness. This research is aimed at understanding the antecedent motives underlying task-related interpersonal helping.Design/Methodology/Approach
The research took an atypical approach by asking employees directly to explain in their own words why they would, or would not, help co-workers with work-related problems. Content analysis yielded five categories of motives for helping. The qualitative motive categories were able to explain variance in quantitative scales assessing respondents’ affect, attitudes, organizational perceptions, and demographics.Findings
Employees who gave altruistic reasons for helping (i.e., helping was a personal value or a contribution to the team) reported performing more helping behaviors, expressed greater organizational commitment, and perceived more organizational justice than did employees who expected reciprocity for helping, or whose help was contingent.Implications
No existing theory of helping explains the total collection of motives identified in this research. We encourage researchers to develop integrated theories capable of explaining the totality of motives for task-related helping. Our research identities several essential parameters of such integrated theories and provides guidance for carrying out the task of theory integration.Originality/Value
This phenomenological research is the only empirical investigations into task-related helping based on respondents’ own reasons for helping. It also is one of the few to incorporate both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. 相似文献8.
9.
Awareness of mentoring and networking assists helping professionals personally and as they work with and guide their students and clients toward their life and career goals. 相似文献
10.
11.
12.
Reasons for Belief 总被引:1,自引:0,他引:1
Hannah GINSBORG 《Philosophy and phenomenological research》2006,72(2):286-318
Davidson claims that nothing can count as a reason for a belief except another belief. This claim is challenged by McDowell, who holds that perceptual experiences can count as reasons for beliefs. I argue that McDowell fails to take account of a distinction between two different senses in which something can count as a reason for belief. While a non-doxastic experience can count as a reason for belief in one of the two senses, this is not the sense which is presupposed in Davidson's claim. While 1 focus on McDowell's view, the argument generalizes to other views which take experiences as reasons for belief. 相似文献
13.
This article outlines a conceptual framework describing predictable differences in the intellectual development of college students and suggests applications leading to sound counseling and educational intervention. 相似文献
14.
15.
16.
Susanna Rinard 《No?s (Detroit, Mich.)》2019,53(4):763-784
Some prominent evidentialists argue that practical considerations cannot be normative reasons for belief because they can't be motivating reasons for belief. Existing pragmatist responses turn out to depend on the assumption that it's possible to believe in the absence of evidence. The evidentialist may deny this, at which point the debate ends in an impasse. I propose a new strategy for the pragmatist. This involves conceding that belief in the absence of evidence is impossible. We then argue that evidence can play a role in bringing about belief without being a motivating reason for belief, thereby leaving room for practical considerations to serve as motivating reasons. I present two ways in which this can happen. First, agents can use evidence as a mere means by which to believe, with practical considerations serving as motivating reasons for belief, just as we use tools (e.g. a brake pedal) as mere means by which to do something (e.g. slow down) which we are motivated to do for practical reasons. Second, evidence can make it possible for one to choose whether or not to believe – a choice one can then make for practical reasons. These arguments push the debate between the evidentialist and the pragmatist into new territory. It is no longer enough for an evidentialist to insist that belief is impossible without evidence. Even if this is right, the outcome of the debate remains unsettled. It will hang on the ability of the evidentialist to respond to the new pragmatist strategy presented here. 相似文献
17.
ALBERT MYERS 《Journal of counseling and development : JCD》1972,50(10):817-822
The mass media have given anyone who is remotely interested a general picture of what it is like to be a heroin user. Very few people, however, have any idea of what it is like to try to stop being an addict. Even addicts and ex-addicts provide a confused and frequently inaccurate picture. This article discusses the types of problems counselors encounter when they deal with those who want to stop using heroin and focuses on those issues about which most people seem unaware. 相似文献
18.
19.
Geoffrey Prior-wandesforde 《British Journal of Guidance & Counselling》1978,6(2):215-219
Careers advisers in higher education have recently had to give more of their attention to graduates who have been unsuccessful with their job applications. As a result, a group of advisers ran a short course in December 1976 for unemployed graduates, which took the form of a Lift Planning Workshop followed by sessions on self-presentation techniques. Subsequent monitoring showed that participants felt that they both had benefitted from the chance for self-evaluation and had improved their techniques of applying for jobs. 相似文献
20.