全文获取类型
收费全文 | 186篇 |
免费 | 2篇 |
专业分类
188篇 |
出版年
2024年 | 1篇 |
2023年 | 4篇 |
2022年 | 1篇 |
2021年 | 2篇 |
2020年 | 6篇 |
2019年 | 13篇 |
2018年 | 11篇 |
2017年 | 15篇 |
2016年 | 9篇 |
2015年 | 10篇 |
2014年 | 7篇 |
2013年 | 26篇 |
2012年 | 3篇 |
2011年 | 2篇 |
2010年 | 1篇 |
2009年 | 7篇 |
2008年 | 10篇 |
2007年 | 5篇 |
2006年 | 11篇 |
2005年 | 10篇 |
2004年 | 6篇 |
2003年 | 11篇 |
2002年 | 2篇 |
2001年 | 3篇 |
2000年 | 3篇 |
1999年 | 3篇 |
1998年 | 2篇 |
1997年 | 1篇 |
1994年 | 1篇 |
1993年 | 1篇 |
1992年 | 1篇 |
排序方式: 共有188条查询结果,搜索用时 0 毫秒
151.
Christopher Cowie 《Metaphilosophy》2015,46(4-5):605-619
Metaethicists typically develop and assess their theories—in part—on the basis of the consistency of those theories with “ordinary” first‐order normative judgment. They are, in this sense, “methodologically conservative.” This article shows that this methodologically conservative approach obstructs a proper assessment of the debate between internalists and externalists. Specifically, it obstructs one of the most promising readings of internalism. This is a reading—owed to Bernard Williams—in which internalism is part of a practically and politically motivated revision of the assessment of action. The article uses this case study to highlight the role of methodological conservatism in contemporary metaethics more generally. 相似文献
152.
Jeff Behrends 《Canadian journal of philosophy》2015,45(2):159-178
Source Hybridism about practical reasons is the position that facts that constitute reasons sometimes derive their normative force from external metaphysical grounds, and sometimes from internal. Although historically less popular than either Source Internalism or Source Externalism, hybridism has lately begun to garner more attention. Here, I further the hybridist's cause by defending Source Hybridism from three objections. I argue that we are not warranted in rejecting hybridism for any of the following reasons: that hybridists cannot provide an account of normative weight, that hybridists are committed to implausible results concerning practical deliberation, or that Source Hybridism is objectionably unparsimonious. 相似文献
153.
Pekka Väyrynen 《Inquiry (Oslo, Norway)》2013,56(6):607-623
Normative explanations, which specify why things have the normative features they do, are ubiquitous in normative theory and ordinary thought. But there is much less work on normative explanation than on scientific or metaphysical explanation. Skow [2016. Reasons Why. Oxford: Oxford University Press] argues that a complete answer to the question why some fact Q occurs consists in all of the reasons why Q occurs. This paper explores this theory as a case study of a general theory that promises to offer us a grip on normative explanation which is independent of particular normative theories. I first argue that the theory doesn't give an adequate account of certain enablers of reasons which are important in normative explanation. I then formulate and reject three responses on behalf of the theory. But I suggest that since theories of this general sort have the right kind of resources to illuminate how normative explanation might be similar to and different from explanations in other domains, they nonetheless merit further exploration by normative theorists. 相似文献
154.
Gerald Beaulieu 《Metaphilosophy》2013,44(4):440-450
What kind of thing is a reason for action? Are reasons for action subjective states of the agent, such as desires and/or beliefs? Or are they, rather, objective features of situations that favor certain actions? The suggestion offered in this article is that neither strategy satisfies. What is needed is a third category for classifying reasons which makes them out to be neither purely subjective nor purely objective. In brief: a reason for action is a feature of the situation that matters to the agent. On this proposal, subjective states of the agent are indeed indispensable in characterizing reasons for action. Precisely which set of situational features matter to an agent—precisely what shape the agent experiences the situation as having—depends on the agent's psychological makeup. Those features themselves are not psychological states, however, and it is precisely those features that constitute the agent's reasons for action. 相似文献
155.
ANDREW E. REISNER 《Theoria》2007,73(4):304-316
Abstract: This paper poses a puzzle concerning a broadly held view about normative reasons for belief: evidentialism. Evidentialism is the highly intuitive view that the only normative reasons for belief are evidential reasons. I shall argue that in certain circumstances, evidentialism is unable to generate the correct reasons for belief; these reasons can only be provided by other kinds of epistemic reasons apart from evidential ones. I am not arguing that reasons in ordinary cases for belief are non‐evidential, but that evidentialism is too narrow an account of normative reasons for belief to serve as a complete theory of epistemic reasons. 相似文献
156.
《The journal of positive psychology》2013,8(6):493-503
Individuals’ subjective well-being (SWB) when attaining their goals is moderated by the characteristics of their goals. Two significant moderators are whether goals are approach or avoidance oriented and their content. Within the goal-setting literature, these characteristics have been applied to goals as such, focussing on what it is people try to achieve. However, they can equally be applied to analyse why individuals pursue their goals. By applying the dimensions of approach and avoidance orientation as well as goal content to the analysis of goal-striving reasons, a framework has been developed encompassing the following four goal-striving reasons: goals pursuit because of pleasure, for altruistic reasons, out of necessity and for self-esteem reasons. The empirical findings (N?=?174) show that goal-striving reasons are significantly associated with affective SWB. Therefore goal-striving reasons provide an additional level of analysis, when analysing the relation between goals and affective SWB. 相似文献
157.
Miranda Fricker 《Metaphilosophy》2003,34(1&2):154-173
The dual aim of this article is to reveal and explain a certain phenomenon of epistemic injustice as manifested in testimonial practice, and to arrive at a characterisation of the anti–prejudicial intellectual virtue that is such as to counteract it. This sort of injustice occurs when prejudice on the part of the hearer leads to the speaker receiving less credibility than he or she deserves. It is suggested that where this phenomenon is systematic it constitutes an important form of oppression. 相似文献
158.
医生的特殊干涉:面对患者及其家属的知情不同意的伦理选择 总被引:1,自引:0,他引:1
在医疗活动中,医疗机构与医务人员面临着患者及其家属的知情不同意,分析了导致知情不同意的可能原因,论证了面对危及患者生命的知情不同意时医生行使特殊干涉权的合乎伦理性,并提出了行使特殊干涉权的具体做法。 相似文献
159.
This article examines Leon Kass's contention that a choice forphysician-assisted suicide is "undignified." Although Kass isJewish rather than Christian, he argues for positions that mostChristians share, and he argues for these positions withoutpresupposing the truth of specific religious claims. I arguethat although Kass has some important intuitions, he too readilyassumes that these intuitions will be shared by his audience,and that this assumption diminishes the force of his argument.An examination of the limitations of Kass's argument is helpfulinsofar as it illustrates the real challenge faced by religiousbelievers who wish to defend their beliefs in the "public forum."For it illustrates that what needs to be made "accessible" isthe Judeo-Christian understanding of man and his place in theworld. While I do not wish to claim that this task is impossible,I do think that it is far more difficult than most realize.Like all important tasks, however, unless we wrestle with thedifficulties it raises, our arguments will strike many as unconvincing. 相似文献
160.
Leonhard Schneider 《Ratio》2023,36(1):64-81
This paper argues that Reason Responsiveness (RR) accounts of rationality, proposed for example by Benjamin Kiesewetter and Error Lord, fail to explain structural irrationality (i.e., the irrationality involved in holding incoherent attitudes). Proponents of RR hold that rationality consists in correctly responding to available reasons. Structural irrationality, they argue, is just a “by-product” of incorrect reason-responding. Applying this idea to cases of means–end incoherence, this paper shows that RR accounts must rely on a certain transmission principle. Roughly, this amounts to the principle that necessarily, if (1) A has decisive available reason to intend to E and (2) A has decisive available reason to believe that intending to M is necessary for E-ing, it follows that (3) A has decisive available reason to intend to M. By considering an example, this paper argues that even the most plausible version of this transmission principle does not hold true. It follows that one can correctly respond to one's available reasons while being means–end incoherent. 相似文献