File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: How you can reasonably form expectations when you're expecting

TitleHow you can reasonably form expectations when you're expecting
Authors
Issue Date2015
Citation
Res Philosophica, 2015, v. 92, n. 2, p. 441-452 How to Cite?
AbstractL. A. Paul has argued that an ordinary, natural way of making a decision-by reflecting on the phenomenal character of the experiences one will have as a result of that decision-cannot yield rational decision in certain cases. Paul's argument turns on the (in principle) epistemically inaccessible phenomenal character of certain experiences. In this paper I argue that, even granting Paul a range of assumptions, her argument doesn't work to establish its conclusion. This is because, as I argue, the phenomenal character of an experience supervenes on epistemically accessible facts about its non-phenomenal character plus what the deciding agent is like. Because there are principles that link the non-phenomenal character of experiences (together with what a particular agent is like) to the phenomenal character of experiences, agents can reasonably form expectations about the valence of the phenomenal character of the experiences that they are deciding whether to undergo. These reasonable expectations are, I argue, enough to make the ordinary, natural way of making a decision yield rational decision.,L. A. Paul has argued that an ordinary, natural way of making a decision-by reflecting on the phenomenal character of the experiences one will have as a result of that decision-cannot yield rational decision in certain cases. Paul's argument turns on the (in principle) epistemically inaccessible phenomenal character of certain experiences. In this paper I argue that, even granting Paul a range of assumptions, her argument doesn't work to establish its conclusion. This is because, as I argue, the phenomenal character of an experience supervenes on epistemically accessible facts about its non-phenomenal character plus what the deciding agent is like. Because there are principles that link the non-phenomenal character of experiences (together with what a particular agent is like) to the phenomenal character of experiences, agents can reasonably form expectations about the valence of the phenomenal character of the experiences that they are deciding whether to undergo. These reasonable expectations are, I argue, enough to make the ordinary, natural way of making a decision yield rational decision.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/303503
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 0.3
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.255

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorSharadin, Nathaniel-
dc.date.accessioned2021-09-15T08:25:27Z-
dc.date.available2021-09-15T08:25:27Z-
dc.date.issued2015-
dc.identifier.citationRes Philosophica, 2015, v. 92, n. 2, p. 441-452-
dc.identifier.issn2168-9105-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/303503-
dc.description.abstractL. A. Paul has argued that an ordinary, natural way of making a decision-by reflecting on the phenomenal character of the experiences one will have as a result of that decision-cannot yield rational decision in certain cases. Paul's argument turns on the (in principle) epistemically inaccessible phenomenal character of certain experiences. In this paper I argue that, even granting Paul a range of assumptions, her argument doesn't work to establish its conclusion. This is because, as I argue, the phenomenal character of an experience supervenes on epistemically accessible facts about its non-phenomenal character plus what the deciding agent is like. Because there are principles that link the non-phenomenal character of experiences (together with what a particular agent is like) to the phenomenal character of experiences, agents can reasonably form expectations about the valence of the phenomenal character of the experiences that they are deciding whether to undergo. These reasonable expectations are, I argue, enough to make the ordinary, natural way of making a decision yield rational decision.,L. A. Paul has argued that an ordinary, natural way of making a decision-by reflecting on the phenomenal character of the experiences one will have as a result of that decision-cannot yield rational decision in certain cases. Paul's argument turns on the (in principle) epistemically inaccessible phenomenal character of certain experiences. In this paper I argue that, even granting Paul a range of assumptions, her argument doesn't work to establish its conclusion. This is because, as I argue, the phenomenal character of an experience supervenes on epistemically accessible facts about its non-phenomenal character plus what the deciding agent is like. Because there are principles that link the non-phenomenal character of experiences (together with what a particular agent is like) to the phenomenal character of experiences, agents can reasonably form expectations about the valence of the phenomenal character of the experiences that they are deciding whether to undergo. These reasonable expectations are, I argue, enough to make the ordinary, natural way of making a decision yield rational decision.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofRes Philosophica-
dc.titleHow you can reasonably form expectations when you're expecting-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.11612/resphil.2015.92.2.2-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84994246705-
dc.identifier.volume92-
dc.identifier.issue2-
dc.identifier.spage441-
dc.identifier.epage452-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats