Advertisement

Acta Analytica

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 1–17 | Cite as

Fitting-Attitude Analyses: The Dual-Reason Analysis Revisited

  • Toni Rønnow-Rasmussen
Article

Abstract

Classical fitting-attitude analyses understand value in terms of its being fitting, or more generally, there being a reason to favour the bearer of value. Recently, such analyses have been interpreted as referring to two reason-notions rather than to only one. The idea is that the properties of the object provide reason not only for a certain kind of favouring(s) vis-à-vis the object, but the very same properties should also figure in the intentional content of the favouring; the agent should favour the object on account of those properties that provide reason for favouring the object in the first place. While this expansion of the original proposal might seem intuitive given that favourings are discerning attitudes, it is nonetheless argued that proponents of the fitting-attitude analysis are in fact not served by such an expansion of the classical analysis. The objections raised here are relevant not only for advocates and critics of fitting-attitude analyses, but for anyone interested in the relation between normative reasons and motivation.

Keywords

Attitudinal content Buck-passing account Dual-role analysis Fitting-attitude analysis Motivating reason Normative reason Value 

Notes

Acknowledgments

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the research seminar in practical philosophy at Lund University, at a symposium at Vrije University (VU), and at the 2012 Bled Philosophical Conference. I would like to thank all of the seminar, workshop and conference organizers and members—particularly Steven Arkonovich, Dan Egonsson, Mylan Engel, Ingvar Johansson, Simon Kirschin, Iddo Landau, Eugene Mills, Bert Musschenga, Alastair Norcross, Scott O’Leary, Matjaž Potrč, Björn Petersson, Wlodek Rabinowicz, Saul Smilansky, Bart Streumer and Andras Szigeti —for fruitful discussions and helpful suggestions. Also, many thanks to David Sobel for useful comments on a part of this paper, and to Stefaan Cuypers and Filip Buekens, with whom I discussed some of the ideas presented here during my visit to KU Leuven. My work was supported by a generous grant from the Swedish Research Council.

References

  1. Cook, P. (2008). An augmented buck-passing account of reasons and value: Scanlon and Crisp on what stops the buck. Utilitas, 20, 490–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dancy, J. (2000). Practical reality. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  3. Danielsson, S., & Olson, J. (2007). Brentano and the Buck-passers. Mind, 116, 511–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gert, J. (2003). Internalism and different kinds of reasons. The Philosophical Forum, 34(1), 53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Olson, J., & Svensson, F. (2005). Regimenting reasons. Theoria, LXXI(3), 203–214.Google Scholar
  6. Parfit, D. (2001). Rationality and reasons. In D. Egonsson, J. Josefsson, B. Petterson, & T. Rønnow-Rasmussen (Eds.), Exploring practical philosophy: from action to values (pp. 17–41). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  7. Pettit, P., & Smith, M. (1990). Backgrounding desire. Philosophical Review, 99, 565–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Rabinowicz, W. (2011). Value relations – Old wine in New Barrels. In A. Reboul (Ed.), Philosophical Papers to Kevin Mulligan. Available via: http://www.philosophie.ch/kevin/festschrift/
  9. Rabinowicz, W., & Rønnow-Rasmussen, T. (2000). A distinction in value: intrinsic and for its own sake. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society vol. C, part 1, 33–51.Google Scholar
  10. Rabinowicz, W., & Rønnow-Rasmussen, T. (2004). The strike of the demon: on fitting pro-attitudes and value. Ethics, 114, 391–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Rabinowicz, W., & Rønnow-Rasmussen, T. (2006). Buck-passing and the right kind of reasons. The Philosophical Quarterly, 56(222), 114–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Raz, J. (1999). Engaging reasons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Rønnow-Rasmussen, T. (2011a). Personal value. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rønnow-Rasmussen, T. (2011b). Reasons and two kinds of fact. In F. Svensson & R. Sliwinski (Eds.), Neither/Nor—Philosophical Papers Dedicated to Erik Carlson on the Occasion of His Fiftieth Birthday (pp. 243–257). Uppsala: Uppsala Philosophical Studies.Google Scholar
  15. Rønnow-Rasmussen, T. (2013). Good and good for. In H. LaFollette (Ed.), International encyclopedia of ethics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell (in press).Google Scholar
  16. Scanlon, T. M. (1998). What we owe to each other. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Schroeder, M. (2007). Slaves of the passion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Zimmerman, M. J. (2011). Partiality and intrinsic value. Mind, 120, 447–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations