Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T21:30:24.349Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reasons Not to Consider Our Options

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2020

JEFFREY SEIDMAN Open the ORCID record for JEFFREY SEIDMAN [Opens in a new window]
JEFFREY SEIDMAN*
Affiliation:
VASSAR [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I argue that a practical deliberator may have good reasons not to consider some option even though that option is what there is most reason, all things considered, for her to do. The most interesting reasons not to consider an option arise in cases where an agent cannot be compensated in kind for the loss of goods that she values. Where this is the case, an attitude of conservatism is warranted: it is reasonable to begin deliberation by considering only ‘no-regrets’ options, and to proceed to considering other possibilities only when the cost of continuing to consider only no-regrets options has become intolerably high. The account that I develop illuminates intuitions that help motivate deontological moral thought, and it can shed light on the complaint that there is something wrong with the way in which schematic thought experiments are frequently used in philosophy to drive moral theorizing.

Keywords

reasonsdeliberationpractical reasoningvaluingmoral psychologyconservatism
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the American Philosophical Association , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , Fall 2020 , pp. 353 - 371
Copyright
Copyright © American Philosophical Association 2020

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.)

Footnotes

Thanks to Jamie Kelly, Sofia Ortiz-Hinojosa, and Chris Raymond for helpful comments during a work-in-progress seminar at Vassar College and to Andrei Buckareff and an audience at Marist College, where I presented an ancestor of this paper.

References

Alexander, L. (2000) ‘Deontology at the Threshold’. San Diego Law Review, 37, 893–912.Google Scholar
Anscombe, G. E. M. (1958) ‘Modern Moral Philosophy’. Philosophy, 33, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arpaly, N., and Schroeder, T.. (2012) ‘Deliberation and Acting for Reasons’. Philosophical Review, 121, 209–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bratman, M. (2007) Structures of Agency. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broome, J. (1991) Weighing Goods: Equality, Uncertainty and Time. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cohen, G. A. (2012) Finding Oneself in Another. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Doris, J. (2015) Talking to Ourselves. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, J. (1997) ‘Incommensurability: What's the Problem?’. In Chang, Ruth (ed.), Incommensurability, Incomparability and Practical Reason (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 35–51.Google Scholar
Harrison, A. (1977) ‘Mere Exposure’. In Berkowitz, L. (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 10 (San Diego, CA: Academic Press), 39–83.Google Scholar
Hume, D. (1975) Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. In Selby-Bigge, L.A. and Nidditch, P.H. (eds.), David Hume: Enquiries Concerning the Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals, 3rd ed. (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press), 169–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaworska, A. (2007) ‘Caring and Internality’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 74, 529–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovibond, S. (2004) ‘Absolute Prohibitions without Divine Promises’. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 54, 141–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millgram, E. (1997) ‘Incommensurability and Practical Reasoning.’ In Chang, Ruth (ed.), Incommensurability, Incomparability and Practical Reason (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 151–69.Google Scholar
Moller, D. (2007) ‘Love and Death’. Journal of Philosophy, 104, 301–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morewedge, C., and Giblin, C.. (2015) ‘Explanations of the Endowment Effect: An Integrative Review’. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19, 339–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, L. (2014) Transformative Experience. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Railton, P. (2009) ‘Practical Competence and Fluent Agency’. In Sobel, David and Wall, Steven (eds.), Reasons for Action (New York: Cambridge University Press), 81–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dudley, R v. and Stephens, . (1884) 14 Queen's Bench Division, 273.Google Scholar
Raz, J. (1999) Engaging Reason: On the Theory of Value and Action. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Raz, J. (2001) Value, Respect and Attachment. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scanlon, T. (1998) What We Owe to Each Other. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Scheffler, S. (2018) Why Worry About Future Generations? Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidman, J. (2009) ‘Valuing and Caring’. Theoria, 75, 272–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidman, J. (2016) ‘The Unity of Caring and the Rationality of Emotion’. Philosophical Studies, 173, 2785–2801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D, Wiggins. (1998a) ‘Weakness of Will, Commensurability, and the Objects of Deliberation and Desire’. In Wiggins, David (ed.), Needs, Values, Truth, 3rd ed. (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press), 239–68.Google Scholar
Wiggins, D. (1998b) ‘Incommensurability: Four Proposals’. In Wiggins, David (ed.), Needs, Values, Truth, 3rd ed. (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press), 357–80.Google Scholar
Williams, B. (1973) ‘A Critique of Utilitarianism’. In Smart, J. J. C. and Williams, Bernard (eds.), Utilitarianism For and Against (New York: Cambridge University Press), 77–150.Google Scholar
Zajonc, R. (1968) ‘Attitudinal Effects of Mere Exposures’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar