Resultado de búsqueda
Jonathan Dancy maintains that current philosophical orthodoxy bowdlerizes this relation, making it impossible to understand how anyone can act for a good reason. By giving a fresh account of values and reasons, he finds a place for normativity in philosophy of mind and action, and strengthens the connection between these areas and ethics.
Handout #3: Moral motivation and externalism. David O. Brink - unknown. Morality, reasons, and sentiments. Eric Vogelstein - 2011 - Philosophical Studies 155 (3):421-432. Ethics without principles. Jonathan Dancy - 2004 - New York: Oxford University Press. Moral reasons, overridingness, and supererogation. Douglas W. Portmore - manuscript.
Jonathan Peter Dancy (8 de Maio de 1946) é um filósofo britânico, professor na Universidade de Reading e na Universidade do Texas. Depois de se ter tornado professor na Universidade de Keele , em 1971, onde trabalhou em problemas de epistemologia , particularmente sobre a natureza da percepção ( argumento da ilusão ), emergiu como o principal defensor do particularismo moral .
Jonathan Dancy ha tratado de establecer durante más de veinte años los fundamentos de una articulada defensa del particularismo acerca del razonamiento práctico y de la moralidad Puede destacarse, en dicha trayectoria, Moral Reasons, Oxford, Blackwell, 1993.. Su posición se basa en las dos tesis siguientes (p. 7):
Jonathan Dancy. In Clayton Littlejohn & John Turri (eds.), Epistemic Norms: New Essays on Action, Belief, and Assertion. ... Dancy on Acting for the Right Reason. Errol Lord - 2007 - Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy (3):1-7. Athanasius Kircher on the Beauty of Knowing Everything.
ジョナサン・ダンシー. ジョナサン・ピーター・ダンシー (Jonathan Peter Dancy、1946年 5月8日 - ）は、英国出身の哲学者。 認識論、倫理学を専門とする。 レディング大学、およびテキサス大学オースティン校の教授。 息子は俳優のヒュー・ダンシー。. 1956年、イギリスのハンプシャー州 ...
28 de mar. de 2018 · Jonathan Dancy, being the contemporary founding father of particularism, provides the most influential, if not the most definitive, statement of the doctrine in Dancy 2009. Väyrynen 2011 offers a balanced analysis of the pros and the cons of particularism, whereas Crisp 1998 takes a somewhat disparaging view about it.
