Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-21T17:59:59.326Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Error Condition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 October 2019

Jeremy David Fix Open the ORCID record for Jeremy David Fix [Opens in a new window]
Jeremy David Fix*
Affiliation:
Keble College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The possibility of error conditions the possibility of normative principles. I argue that extant interpretations of this condition undermine the possibility of normative principles for our action because they implicitly treat error as a perfection of an action. I then explain how a constitutivist metaphysics of capacities explains why error is an imperfection of an action. Finally, I describe and defend the interpretation of the error condition which follows.

Keywords

Agencyactionerrorpractical reasonnormativityconstitutivism
Type
Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , January 2020 , pp. 34 - 48
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Canadian Journal of Philosophy

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Austin, J. L. 1956a. “A Plea for Excuses.” In Philosophical Papers, 123–52. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. 1956b. “Ifs and Cans.” In Philosophical Papers, 153–80. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cokelet, Bradford. 2008. “Ideal Agency and the Possibility of Error.” Ethics 118: 315–23. https://doi.org/10.1086/523745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elizondo, E. Sonny. 2013. “Reason in Its Practical Application.” Philosophers’ Imprint 13 (21): 1–17. Permalink: http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3521354.0013.021.Google Scholar
Fix, Jeremy David. Forthcoming. “Two Sorts of Constitutivism.”Analytic Philosophy.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1763. “Attempt to Introduce the Concept of Negative Magnitudes into Philosophy.” In Theoretical Philosophy, edited by Walford, David and Meerbote, Ralf, translated by Walford, David, 203–42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1797. The Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by Gregor, Mary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine M. 1996. The Sources of Normativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine M. 1997. “The Normativity of Instrumental Reason.” In The Constitution of Agency, 27–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lavin, Douglas. 2004. “Practical Reason and the Possibility of Error.” Ethics 114 (3): 424–57. https://doi.org/10.1086/381695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavin, Douglas. 2013. “Must There Be Basic Action?” Noûs 47 (2): 273–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0068.2012.00876.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavin, Douglas. 2017. “Forms of Rational Agency.” Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 80 (July): 171–93. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1358246117000091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDowell, John. 2010. “Autonomy and Its Burdens.” Harvard Review of Philosophy 17 (1): 4–15. https://doi.org/10.5840/harvardreview20101711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milton, John. 1667. Paradise Lost, edited by Fowler, Alastair. Harlow, England: Longman.Google Scholar
Quinn, Warren. 1992. “Rationality and the Human Good.” In Morality and Action, 210–27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ryle, Gilbert. 1949. The Concept of Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Schafer, Karl. Forthcoming. “Rationality as the Capacity for Understanding.” Noûs. https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Michael. 2008. Life and Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar