Can Instrumental Reasoning Stand Alone?
I. Introduction
There is something appealing about ordinary instrumental or means-end reasoning. One begins with a want, a goal or a desire and considers available options as means to its satisfaction or achievement. If, among the available options, one is the best or only way to satisfy the desire or achieve the goal, one has a reason to select it. If two or more options both seem to lead to the goal, they may still differ in other ways, e.g., in the probability with which they lead to the goal – in which case (if that was the only difference) one would have reason to choose the option which led to the goal with higher probability.
To consider things in the simplest form possible, consider a being with only a single desire. Suppose that this being wants nothing but to break a street-lamp. Even in so simple a case, we can begin to say what he ought to do. Any number of things may be effective. If he has no other goals – not even going unapprehended so that he can do it again with some other street-lamp – he may use a rifle, a pistol, throw rocks at it, climb the lamp-post to bash it with his fist, etc. But we can say that there are some things that, in terms of his goal, he ought not to do, for example, that he ought not to try breaking it (because he won’t succeed) by throwing feathers at it, one by one.
It looks as though, even in this deliberately simplified case, means-end reasoning, combined with some knowledge of the world, is enough to tell us something about what he ought to do. This is not, to be sure, a moral ‘ought,’ but we seem to have generated a normative conclusion, an ought-judgment of a modest sort, without appealing to any mysterious non-natural properties ...
... middle of paper ...
...h a person? Perhaps, a real example of an existentialist chooser would say that there is not even a reason for committing oneself rather than not; one just does (or does not).
[15] This is not being offered as a solution to the central problem that Korsgaard has raised. I am, as stated earlier, only assuming that there is some solution. Rather, I am trying to show that, given the existence of some solution to that problem, though we need some further normative principle, it does not have to be one that picks out certain ends for us. In short, we can do almost what could have been done had the defenders of the autonomy of instrumental reasoning been correct. (In fact, I think we can do quite a bit more than we could if they had been correct – but that’s a topic for another paper.)
[16] And I do not in any case have non-dialectical proofs that they are mistaken.
The United States continues to give around $550 billion in aid to other countries each year, making America the world's top donor by far (Richardson). While the United States government only supplies $252 billion to needy Americans each year. Former Assistant to the President for Communications, Patrick Buchanan said, "The idea that we should send endless streams of tax dollars all over the world, while our own country sinks slowly in an ocean of debt is, well, ludicrous" (Foreign Aid). The United States need to give money to support the domestic impoverished rather than supporting developing foreign countries because the poverty and homelessness in America is increasing faster than the aid necessary to reduce this trend. Part of the reason that the United States should aid the domestic impoverished is that some foreign countries cannot be trusted with the money given to them and in certain cases, the money intended to aid countries are harmful for that country’s well-being.
one must have at least a general idea of his motives in undertaking the argument.
ABSTRACT: In opposition to the instrumental doctrine of rationality, I argue that the rationality of the end served by a strategy is a necessary condition of the rationality of the strategy itself: means to ends cannot be rational unless the ends are rational. First, I explore cases-involving ‘proximate’ ends (that is, ends whose achievement is instrumental to the pursuit of some more fundamental end) — where even instrumentalists must concede that the rationality of a strategy presupposes the rationality of the end it serves. Second, I draw attention to the counter-intuitive consequences — in cases involving ‘non-proximate’ ends — of substituting (allegedly more manageable) questions about de facto ends for questions about the rationality of ends. Third, I argue-against Nozick — that it is a mistake to suppose that the only question dividing instrumentalists from non-instrumentalists is whether the instrumental doctrine needs supplementation. Finally, I try to show that questions about the rationality of ends need not be viewed as impossibly daunting.
Gilbert Harman lays out his moral relativism theory with “inner judgments”, the statements concerned with “ought”, in Moral Relativism Defended. However, he assumes an important premise of his theory to be true, which is the reason that I will prove the missing premise – that moral relativism is true – in this paper. Moreover, his form of moral relativism with his “four-place predicate ‘Ought(A,D,C,M),’ which relates an agent A, a type of action D, considerations C, and motivating attitudes M,” has brought about both meta-ethical and practical concerns. He argues that these inner judgments are only possible if agent A acknowledges considerations of the circumstance C, invokes motivating attitudes M, and supports the action D with C and M. In
Hume presents his argument with three phases; the first proves the Principle of Determinism, he then goes on to prove Human Freedom also exists, coming to the conclusion the two are compatible. The foundation of his...
Existentialism is a branch of philosophy mostly concerned with the ideas of choice, meaning, and the limits of existence. Existentialism denies any form of predetermined systems, for they generally imply an external source of meaning, or power. Existentialism is often misconstrued of being nihilistic (if there is no predetermined meaning, then the world is completely meaningles...
The United States is one of the leading suppliers of Foreign Aid in the world, and even though the US gives billions, European countries give aid money to the same countries, this causes many areas of the Middle East, Africa, and Asia to be almost fully dependent on foreign aid. This means that without aid from other countries, they would not be able to support themselves at all. Foreign aid is meant to help countries that are struggling with civil unrest, disease, or natural disasters, it is not meant to help keep the country out of debt, but that is where more and more of the US and The EU’s foreign aid budget is going. The question is, does all this money actually go where it is intended? It should be going towards the government and to help the people, but in many cases, the countries government does not have the resources to properly track the flow of money. The countries in most cases have poor infrastructure and corrupt or oppressive leaders, not always at a national level, but in the towns and cities. So this means there is almost no way to oversee the flow of foreign aid through the country, all we can see is that their situations aren't getting any better and the countries are still impoverished. If this is the case, where are the millions of dollars going? Countries like Afghanistan and Iraq receive the most money from American foreign aid and European aid, yet they are still under oppressive governmental rule and there is still an extreme difference between the rich and poor. Garrett Harding’s theory of “Lifeboat Ethics” exemplifies how not giving aid to others will allow the strongest of society to thrive, while teaching the impoverished to help themselves. He believes that giving aid to poor countries will only make ...
The first reasons to think that foreign aid should be spend is that “Aid saves lives” which is clearly illustrated by the researches conducted. Compare 1990 to 2010, as a result of aid in vaccines and health, there was a decrease in number of children who died from illness of pneumonia and diarrhoea (BBC). For example, in Botswana, the foreign aid fund had provided a test of HIV for pregnant mothers and therefore decrease the amount of newborn babies which catches HIV. Furthermore, in Bangladesh, there is a 62% drop in death rate for the under five children, the aid fund allows the government to be able to afford “vaccines and trained the midwives”.
The question of what constitutes morality is often asked by philosophers. One might wonder why morality is so important, or why many of us trouble ourselves over determining which actions are moral actions. Mill has given an account of the driving force behind our questionings of morality. He calls this driving force “Conscience,” and from this “mass of feeling which must be broken through in order to do what violates our standard of right,” we have derived our concept of morality (Mill 496). Some people may practice moral thought more often than others, and some people may give no thought to morality at all. However, morality is nevertheless a possibility of human nature, and a very important one. We each have our standards of right and wrong, and through the reasoning of individuals, these standards have helped to govern and shape human interactions to what it is today. No other beings except “rational beings,” as Kant calls us, are able to support this higher capability of reason; therefore, it is important for us to consider cases in which this capability is threatened. Such a case is lying. At first, it seems that lying should not be morally permissible, but the moral theories of Kant and Mill have answered both yes and no on this issue. Furthermore, it is difficult to decide which moral theory provides a better approach to this issue. In this paper, we will first walk through the principles of each moral theory, and then we will consider an example that will explore the strengths and weaknesses of each theory.
Through his discussion of morals in the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant explores the question of whether a human being is capable of acting solely out of pure duty and if our actions hold true moral value. In passage 407, page 19, Kant proposes that if one were to look at past experiences, one cannot be certain that his or her rationalization for performing an action that conforms with duty could rest solely on moral grounds. In order to fully explain the core principle of moral theory, Kant distinguishes between key notions such as a priori and a posteriori, and hypothetical imperative vs. categorical imperative, in order to argue whether the actions of rational beings are actually moral or if they are only moral because of one’s hidden inclinations.
Mexico remains to be a vibrant destination for many people around the world and is the peak of the majority of American tourism and is currently ranked 10th globally in international visitor arrivals. Mexico’s economy is the 13th largest in the world, and the 11th in purchasing power. The country has an evaluated Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of around $1.567 trillion and has a land area of 1.964375 square kilometers, with 12.66 percent of it being arable land. Mexico has a population of 108.627 million people, with a labor force of 46.99 million people.
Every human being carries with them a moral code of some kind. For some people it is a way of life, and they consult with their code before making any moral decision. However, for many their personal moral code is either undefined or unclear. Perhaps these people have a code of their own that they abide to, yet fail to recognize that it exists. What I hope to uncover with this paper is my moral theory, and how I apply it in my everyday life. What one does and what one wants to do are often not compatible. Doing what one wants to do would usually bring immediate happiness, but it may not benefit one in the long run. On the other hand, doing what one should do may cause immediate unhappiness, even if it is good for oneself. The whole purpose of morality is to do the right thing just for the sake of it. On my first paper, I did not know what moral theories where; now that I know I can say that these moral theories go in accordance with my moral code. These theories are utilitarianism, natural law theory, and kantianism.
An 'economic cost-benefit analysis' approach to reasoning sees actions favoured and chosen if the benefit outweighs the cost. Here, the benefits and costs are in the form of economic benefits and costs, such as, monetary loss or profit. One who is motivated by such an approach will deem a course of action preferable if doing so results in an economic profit. Conversely, actions will be avoided if they result in an economic loss (Kelman 1981).
Being instrumental reflective has more weaknesses than strength. By interviewing three people with different communication styles, I realize the tendency and pattern of my own style. I identify the reflective side as the “real me” because I use it most of the time. It serves as a good listener along normal conversation with friends and family members because conflict seldom happens through this approach. The only weakness for the reflective side is lack of confidence when I communicate at workplace. The instrumental side appears only when there are conflicts and problems that need to be resolved. The above example from Enesha and Kathy clearly explains how I change to instrumental in a sudden.
In David Hume’s A Treatise of Human Nature, he divides the virtues of human beings into two types: natural and artificial. He argues that laws are artificial and a human invention. Therefore, he makes the point that justice is an artificial virtue instead of a natural virtue. He believed that human beings are moral by nature – they were born with some sense of morality and that in order to understand our “moral conceptions,” studying human psychology is the key (Moehler). In this paper, I will argue for Hume’s distinction between the natural and artificial virtues.