-
28Practical arguments for actions are arguments which, besides their epistemic function, shall motivate an addressee to execute the justified action. First, a strategy is developed how this motivational and other requirements can be met. Part of this strategy is to identify a thesis for which holds that believing it motivates in the required manner. Second, relying on empirical decision theory, such a thesis is identified. Finally, precise validity criteria for the respective arguments are develop…Read more
-
63Introduction: The Epistemological Approach to Argumentation--A MapInformal Logic 25 (3): 189-212. 2005.An overview of the epistemological approach to argumentation, explaining what it is, justifying it as better than a rhetorical or a consensual ist approach.systematizing the main directions and theories according to their criteria for good argumentation and presenting their contributions to major topics of argumentation theory. Also. an introduction to the articles of the two special issues of Informal Logic about the epistemological approach to argumentation
-
24Kantischer Externalismus und Motive zu moralischem HandelnConceptus: Zeitschrift Fur Philosophie 35 (86-88): 263-286. 2002.
-
132. Libet’s Experiments and the Possibility of Free Conscious DecisionIn Morality in Times of Naturalising the Mind, De Gruyter. pp. 63-104. 2014.
-
107Intentionality, deliberation and autonomy: the action-theoretic basis of practical philosophy (edited book)Ashgate Publishing. 2007.Many important thinkers in the philosophical tradition, like Aristotle or Hume, have used an explicit theory of action as the basis of their respective normative theories of practical rationality and morality. The idea behind this architecture of theories is that action theory can inform us about the origin, bonds, reach and limits of practical reason. The aim of this book is to revive this direct connection between action theory and practical philosophy, in particular to provide systematic acti…Read more
-
210Habermas' DiskursethikZeitschrift für Philosophische Forschung 51 (1). 1997.Zunächst werden die Kernthesen von Habermas' Diskursethik vorgestellt, insbesondere der Universalisierungsgrundsatz U und das diskursethische Prinzip D. Eine ausführliche Analyse zeigt dann, daß Habermas' Argumentationen für diese Prinzipien in mehrfacher Hinsicht ungültig sind. Die Betrachtung früherer Varianten dieser Argumentationen und späterer Kommentare Habermas' macht zudem eine gewisse Wendung Habermas' weg von der Transzendentalpragmatik hin zum Intuitionismus und eine Abschwächung sein…Read more
-
602Intentions are Optimality Beliefs – But Optimizing What?Erkenntnis 62 (2): 235-262. 2005.In this paper an empirical theory about the nature of intention is sketched. After stressing the necessity of reckoning with intentions in philosophy of action a strategy for deciding empirically between competing theories of intention is exposed and applied for criticizing various philosophical theories of intention, among others that of Bratman. The hypothesis that intentions are optimality beliefs is defended on the basis of empirical decision theory. Present empirical decision theory however…Read more
-
5Biographical Notes on the AuthorsIn Morality in Times of Naturalising the Mind, De Gruyter. pp. 203-206. 2014.
-
Diskurs- und Argumentationstheorie der Wahrheit und Rationalität?Ethik Und Sozialwissenschaften 1 (3): 363. 1990.
-
1How to interpret human actions (including moral actions)In Peter K. Machamer & Gereon Wolters (eds.), Interpretation: Ways of Thinking About the Sciences and the Arts, University of Pittsburgh Press. 2010.
-
168Argument schemes—an epistemological approachArgumentation. Cognition and Community. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), May 18-22, 2011. 2011.The paper develops a classificatory system of basic argument types on the basis of the epis-temological approach to argumentation. This approach has provided strict rules for several kinds of argu-ments. These kinds may be brought into a system of basic irreducible types, which rely on different parts of epistemology: deductive logic, probability theory, utility theory. The system reduces a huge mass of differ-ent argument schemes to basic types and gives them an epistemological foundation.
-
360Subjunctive Tu quoque Arguments. Commentary on Anderson, Aikin & CaseyArgumentation. Cognition and Community. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA). 2011.Tu quoque arguments regard inconsistencies in some speaker‘s performance. Most tu quoque arguments depend on actual inconsistencies. However, there are forms of tu quoque arguments that key, instead, on the conflicts a speaker would have, were some crucial contingent fact different. These, we call subjunctive tu quoque arguments. Finally, there are cases wherein the counterfactual inconsistencies of a speaker are relevant to the issue.
Christoph Lumer
University Of Siena
-
University Of SienaProfessor
Areas of Specialization
4 more
Normative Ethics |
Philosophy of Action |
Argument |
Meta-Ethics |
Climate Change |
Environmental Ethics |
Well-Being |
Rational Choice Theory |
Metaphilosophy |
Areas of Interest
1 more
Epistemology |
Applied Ethics |
Social and Political Philosophy |
Philosophy of Probability |
Value Theory |
Philosophy of Language |