Sarah Stroud

A philosophical treatment of irrationality should at the same time leave space for irrational forms of thought and action and illuminate what is defective about them. While Davidson's analysis of weakness of the will is justly famous, some of Davidson's general philosophical commitments in fact conspire to make it especially difficult for him to account for irrationality. Davidson's conviction that irrationality must involve inconsistency, together with his rather circumscribed understanding of inconsistency, make it questionable whether he can leave the right kind of space for irrational phenomena that seem nonetheless to exist.

This chapter highlights and assesses an important form of argument that has often been deployed in debates over moral demandingness. 'They can’t take that away from me' arguments claim to identify something which morality cannot ask us to give up — something which morality allegedly cannot take away from us. Does any argument of this kind succeed? This chapter investigates that question by sketching and critiquing three such arguments from the contemporary literature, including a well-known argument of Bernard Williams’. It also considers a further impediment to the scope or power of such arguments, namely how little they show even if they succeed. The closing suggestion is that those eager to resist extreme moral demands ought to object at an earlier stage to the arguments which seem to generate such demands.

Disagreement and the implications thereof have emerged as a central preoccupation of recent analytic philosophy. In epistemology, articles on so-called peer disagreement and its implications have burgeoned and now constitute an especially rich subject of discussion in the field. In moral and political philosophy, moral disagreement has of course traditionally been a crucial argumentative lever in meta-ethical debates, and disagreement over conceptions of the good has been the spark for central controversies in political philosophy, such as the limits of legitimate state authority and public reason. Philosophers of language have also been keen to take up disagreement as a tool, for instance in motivating or exploring the merits of contextualist or relativist semantics for certain areas of discourse, such as matters of taste, aesthetic evaluation, and epistemic discourse.

Can you disagree with someone without thinking that what they say is false? As we shall see, this is not only possible but quite frequent. Starting with the type of disagreement most familiar from the philosophical literature, we will progressively expand the circle of genuine disagreement until it encompasses even conceptual disagreement, which might sound like a contradiction in terms. For conceptual disagreement necessarily involves the parties' using different concepts, which one might think would preclude genuine disagreement. We shall argue otherwise, adducing three different types of case in order to demonstrate the scope of this phenomenon.

This paper investigates how we can most effectively argue that partiality toward certain people and not others is morally permissible. Philosophers who strongly insist that morality must leave room for partiality have not made explicit their basis for this conclusion; the present paper comparatively assesses a variety of possible argument strategies which could be deployed in this regard. One promising strategy exploits the acknowledged force of the argument from “the personal point of view,” here interpreted as referring specifically to an agent’s projects. If moral demands must be tempered in light of the special significance to an agent of his own projects, then perhaps the agent’s partial attachments to other people should also receive a measure of protection from impartial moral claims. The case is bolstered by noting the ubiquity of plural or collective agency in contexts of close personal relations: often the two agents in such relationships together pursue joint projects and even constitute a plural agent. This approach does justify special moral treatment of one’s co-agents, although it does not match our initial conception of partiality in all respects.

Among the many practical failures that threaten us, weakness of will or akrasia is often considered to be a paradigm of irrationality. The eleven new essays in this collection, written by an excellent international team of philosophers, some well-established, some younger scholars, give a rich overview of the current debate over weakness of will and practical irrationality more generally. Issues covered include classical questions such as the distinction between weakness and compulsion, the connection between evaluative judgement and motivation, the role of emotions in akrasia, rational agency, and the existence of the will. The also include new topics, such as group akrasia, strength of will, the nature of correct choice, the structure of decision theory, the temporality of prudential reasons, and emotional rationality. Because these questions cut across philosophy of mind and ethics, the collection will be essential reading for scholars, postgraduates, and upper-level undergraduates in both these fields.

I begin by proposing and explicating a plausible articulation of the view that morality is overriding. I then argue that it would be desirable for this thesis to be sustained. However, the prospects for its vindication will depend crucially on which moral theory we adopt. I examine some schematic moral theories in order to bring out which are friendly and which unfriendly to moral overridingness. In light of the reasons to hope that the overridingness thesis can be sustained, theories apparently incompatible with it – I argue that consequentialism is one – have a count against them.

A practical judgement is one which enjoys an internal, necessary relation to subsequent action or intention, and which can serve as a sufficient explanation of such action or intention. Does the phenomenon of weakness of will show that deliberation does not characteristically issue in such practical judgements? The author argues that the possibility of akrasia does not threaten the view that we make practical judgements, when the latter thesis is properly understood. Indeed, the author suggests that the alleged possibility of global akrasia actually supports the practical‐judgement model over what she considers its main rival, a kind of ‘Humean externalism’ about practical reason.

La pensée morale ordinaire semble incorporer une adhésion à des contraintes ou des restrictions déontologiques : des interdictions qui restent en vigueur même dans des cas où les actions interdites constituent le seul moyen de prévenir des conséquences encore pires. La source de ces normes déontologiques, cependant, n'est pas évidente. Plusieurs tentatives récentes pour trouver une base aux restrictions déontologiques ou pour expliquer ce qui les génère sont examinées. La plus prometteuse insiste sur la valeur intrinsèque du statut moral protégé que la morale déontologique attribue à chacun de nous. On discutera brièvement les points forts d'une telle approche et les difficultés auxquelles elle fait face.Ordinary moral thought seems to reflect a commitment to deontological constraints or restrictions on conduct: to prohibitions which remain in force even if such actions are the only way to avert still worse consequences. The source of these deontological norms, however, is not clear. Several recent attempts to offer a basis for deontological restrictions or to explain what gives rise to them are examined. The most promising such attempt emphasizes the intrinsic value of the protected moral status which deontological morality ascribes to each of us. The strong points of such an approach and the difficulties facing it are briefly discussed

RÉSUMÉ Dans ce texte, l'accent est mis sur les contraintes ou restrictions dites déontologiques. Croire en l'existence de telles contraintes, c'est croire qu'il peut être moralement inadmissible de faire quelque chose, même si cette action se révélait la seule manière d'empêcher un résultat encore pire. La question que pose et examine ce texte est celle de savoir pourquoi il est mal de faire des actions qui semblent violer une contrainte déontologique. Plus particulièrement, ce texte étudie l'hypothèse séduisante que nous pourrions expliquer ce qu'il y a de mal dans ce type d'actions en termes de droits. L’article argumente que cette idée, bien que toute naturelle, ne nous permettra pas d'expliquer de manière satisfaisante nos convictions déontologiques. Les droits peuvent être interprétés de plusieurs manières différentes, mais peu importe l'option choisie, nous rencontrons des difficultés. Le problème principal est que l'appel aux droits fait souvent usage des jugements d'admissibilité que nous essayons d'expliquer. Le supposé explanans n'a donc pas l'indépendance requise face à l' explanandum pour en constituer une véritable explication. ABSTRACT The focus of this paper is deontological restrictions or constraints. To believe in the existence of such constraints is to think that it can be morally impermissible to do something even if doing that is the only way to prevent an even worse outcome. The question which this article poses and considers is why it is wrong to perform acts which seem to violate a deontological restriction. In particular, the paper investigates the attractive possibility that we could explain this wrongness in terms of rights. argue that this idea, while natural, will not yield a satisfying explanation of our deontological convictions. Rights can be understood in several different ways, but no matter which option we take we encounter difficulties. The principal problem is that appeals to rights often make use of the very judgments of permissibility which we are trying to explain. The supposed explanans thus lacks sufficient independence from the explanandum to constitute a genuine explanation of it.