<p>There are various theories in the philosophy of mind/cognitive science of what kinds of knowledge, or information carrying mental states, constitute our mental concepts. Such knowledge is used in higher acts of cognition such as in categorization, induction, deduction, and analogical reasoning when we think or reason about the extension of the concept. While most concept theories have primarily focused on concrete concepts such as `chair,' `table,' and `dog,' I take such modern theories and apply them to abstract moral concepts such as `virtue,' `right action,' and `just.' I argue for a new overall pluralistic theory of moral concepts, combining several theories of concepts. This pluralistic view differs from, for example, Ayer's non-cognitivist theory that contends that our moral concepts are constituted by or just are emotions and desires. Finally, I draw further philosophical implications my conclusion may have for applied ethics, normative ethical theory, political philosophy and meta-ethics.</p> / Dissertation

In metaethics, moral irrealists argue that moral facts are neither ontologically real nor mind-independent. In moral semantics, irrealists who are descriptivist error theorists argue that typical moral claims attempt to report descriptive moral facts but that such facts do not exist, so typical moral claims are descriptively false or erroneous. Moral irrealists who are non-descriptivists, such as Mark Timmons, argue for a different function of moral claims. Timmons argues that moral claims attempt to guide action. He further maintains that moral claims can be true or false, but not according to a descriptivist function (he affirms cognitivism but denies descriptivism). I lay out Timmons‘ semantics and grapple with a number of objections to his view. I conclude that Timmons ought to discard his contextual truth-apt semantics and his non-descriptivism; instead he should defend the prescriptive, or evaluative, function of moral claims within an overarching descriptivist error theory. / Graduate / 0422

<p>This dissertation seeks to bring together two philosophical literatures: the functions literature from the philosophy of biology, and the functionalist literature in naturalistic metaethics. Biological function suggests both objectivity and normativity: “the function of the heart is to pump blood” is an objective fact, and yet, hearts may malfunction—and malfunctioning is normative. Many ethicists wish to naturalize ethics—to help find a place for human normative lives in the objective natural world. In order to do so, they need tools to analyze humans as the products of evolutionary processes. Humans have a dual inheritance system involving both cultural and genetic inheritance that makes analysis of function for them particularly complex. In this dissertation, I develop a set of conceptual tools for those who wish to naturalize. I begin by developing an account of inheritance that can handle culture. Then, I elaborate the selected effects account of function so that it can handle all the evolutionary strangeness of culture. I then introduce the monolith fallacy—an error often committed by those studying human evolution—a tendency to oversimplify—to emphasize the high degree of complexity involved in any naturalizing project. Finally, I introduce the notion of value-guided functions—a kind of functioning not tied to our intentions, but to our values to round out the picture. I then apply the whole framework to the work of the functional metaethicists: Allan Gibbard, David Wong, Richard Joyce, and Philip Kitcher.</p> / Dissertation

The thesis is a defence of an original position in the philosophy of action. It argues for a pluralist view of actions dubbed Strong Pluralism. One of the key questions of philosophy of action since the early 20th century has been taken to be 'What are actions'? In my thesis I argue that there is no single correct answer to this question. I put forward two positive claims which explain why this is so: 1. That 'action' is ambiguous and can mean either doing or thing done. 2. That not all doings fall into the same metaphysical category because they can have different constitutive structures: some of them are causings, some are events, and others are processes. I demonstrate in the thesis that these two claims can be held coherently, and I identify the resulting view as Strong Pluralism about action. The thesis divides into two parts. In the first part I lay out and offer a defence of the view in question and in the second I discuss how my pluralist view of relates to the three major types of views of action: events, causings, and process views. The first part of the thesis consists of three steps of the main argument of my thesis, each step outlined and argued for in a chapter. In the first chapter I offer an overview of the answers provided to the 'What is action'? question offered by philosophers in the last 80 years. I identify a trend common to these views to advance monist answers, that is, they offer views of action which are committed to 'action' meaning one thing and all actions fitting into the same metaphysical category. I argue that the monist answers are unsatisfactory and monism about actions cannot be maintained. In chapter two I offer an alternative to monism in the form of pluralism about actions. I defend pluralism by arguing that 'action' is ambiguous between doing and things done, and by showing that it is a as suitable substitute for monism. I provide an overview of the four most important ways in which the doing/thing done distinction has been made, and I suggest and defend a further version of it. In chapter three, I outline three possible pluralist views of actions, and defend the view which I call Strong Pluralism. Strong Pluralism is committed to the claims that there are both doings and things done, and that there are doings which have different constitutions from other doings, hence it is correct to think that some doings are events, some are causings, and some are processes. In the three chapters which constitute the second part of the thesis I engage successively with views which have claimed that actions are events, that they are causings, and that actions are processes. I argue in each chapter that there are doings which can be said to belong into the category discussed and I provide positive accounts and examples of when this is so. I offer a categorization of doings which helps us to decide which doings fall into the group of events, which into that of causings, and which into that of processes. Throughout these three chapters I critically discuss the most influential events, causings, and process views and point out several aspects in which they are too limiting or mistaken about doings. The view of doings and things done worked out in thesis helps to resolve long standing issues in the philosophy of action by clarifying what we take to be the object of explanation, knowledge, and evaluation when we discuss actions in ethics, philosophy of science, philosophy of mind, epistemology (esp. debates about knowledge of action) and other fields of philosophy. The view can have broader applications in the fields of moral psychology and cognitive science by helping to sharpen our account of what researchers are discussing when they are discussing actions.

Title: Hare's thesis as a logical and philosophical problem Author: Martin Luhan Department: Department of Logic Supervisor: PhDr. Vladimír Svoboda, CSc. Abstract: The present work is aiming to analyse the problem of inferring from impe- rative premisses to an indicative conclusion which goes by the name Hare's Thesis. The logical analysis of the language of morals was the basis of Richard M. Hare's ethical studies. Therefore a brief presentation of his philosophy is given followed by a detailed walkthrough of his way of dealing with impera- tives. Hare states that logic should be interested in dealing with prescriptive sentences. The paper also presents a selection of some of the semantics of logic of imperatives and some of their fundamental problems. Based on this we finally analyse whether the Hare's Thesis which forbids inferring from im- perative premisses to indicative conclusions is acceptable. And we conclude that in most cases it is reasonable to reject it. Keywords: Logic of imperatives, Hare's Thesis, deontic logic, metaethics

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Plato's 'Crito' depicts Socrates in prison awaiting his execution and arguing that despite the injustice of his sentence, he is morally obligated to remain there so that it can be carried out. The early Socratic dialogues were concerned with the nature of the virtues which formed the foundation of Athenian morals. This "primacy of virtue" has developed into the modern theory of virtue ethics. In this thesis, I argue that in the 'Crito', Socrates sets aside his typical virtue ethics approach, and instead utilizes a deontological framework for his arguments. I apply the deontological theories of Immanuel Kant and W. D. Ross to the 'Crito' in an attempt to demonstrate that it has a distinctly duty-based focus that is consistent with the work of Kant and Ross. Finally, I raise the question of whether Ross' theory can be viewed as a bridge between virtue ethics and deontological ethics.