Negotiations are not solely an exchange of numbers. Rather, negotiators often surround their offers with explanations, accounts, and rationales that seek to justify, explain, and legitimize whatever terms they are proposing. However, surprisingly little scholarship has studied the role of these stories and the evidence that does exist seems inconclusive. In this dissertation, I examine how, why, and when the words we use in trying to explain and justify our positions work but also often fail to work in negotiations. In Chapter 2, I distinguish between two kinds of rationales buyers commonly employ—constraint rationales (referring to one’s own limited resources) and critique rationales (involving critiques of the negotiated object)—and demonstrate their divergent effects (Studies 1-4). In Chapter 3, I examine why buyers so often embrace the seemingly-flawed strategy of critique and seek evidence of whether perspective-taking might improve buyers’ ability to effectively offer critiques (Studies 5-7). In Chapter 4, I explore the role of attachment and its interaction with rationales, shedding light on previously unstudied dynamics between attachment and buyer accounts (Studies 8-10). I conclude by discussing the broader implications of these findings for understanding the dynamics of social exchange. Taken together, this research suggests that accounts and rationales matter, sometimes profoundly, and part of that is because of how they interact with a listener’s identity and attachment.

Wong, Po Lam. / Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2008. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 81-83). / Abstracts in English and Chinese. / Table of Contents / Introduction --- p.1 / Chapter I. --- Preliminary Analysis --- p.3 / Chapter a) --- The Importance of the Problem of Practical Primacy --- p.3 / Chapter b) --- "“Reason,´ح “Speculative，´ح “Theoretical´ح and “Practical´ح" --- p.5 / Chapter i) --- The Concept “Reason´ح --- p.5 / Chapter ii) --- “Speculative，´ح “Theoretical´ح and “Practical´ح --- p.7 / Chapter c) --- Reason´ةs Interest --- p.13 / Chapter d) --- Two Perspectives of the Problem of the Primacy --- p.17 / Chapter II. --- Unity and Teleology of Reason as a whole --- p.21 / Chapter a) --- Preliminary --- p.21 / Chapter i) --- Unity of Reason and Moral Theology --- p.21 / Chapter ii) --- An Inconsistency presented in Groundwork and the Second Critique --- p.23 / Chapter b) --- Arguments for the Unity of Reason in the First and Second Critiques --- p.25 / Chapter i) --- Argument from Similarity --- p.25 / Chapter ii) --- Primacy of the Practical in the First and Second Critiques --- p.28 / Chapter iii) --- Other Considerations for the Unity of Reason --- p.32 / Chapter c) --- New Approach to the Unity of Reason --- p.36 / Chapter i) --- Failure in the Argument from Similarity --- p.37 / Chapter ii) --- Idea of a Fundamental Power as a Key to the Problem of the Unity of Reason --- p.38 / Chapter d) --- Unification of Reason --- p.42 / Chapter i) --- Unification of Reason in the First and Second Critiques --- p.42 / Chapter ii) --- Theoretical Reason: From Empirical Laws to Teleological Order of Nature --- p.46 / Chapter iii) --- The Ideas of a Moral World and a Wise Creator --- p.54 / Chapter iv) --- Primacy of the Practical Reconsidered --- p.60 / Chapter III. --- The Superiority of the Practical on Moral Theology --- p.62 / Chapter a) --- The Moral Proof for the Existence of God --- p.62 / Chapter b) --- The Distinction of Knowledge and Faith --- p.68 / Chapter c) --- The Postulate of the Existence of God --- p.73 / Conclusion --- p.80 / References --- p.81

Proceduralists about practical rationality and reasons for action argue that practical rationality is only capable of criticizing our reasons for action when, through deliberation, they are reachable through our current beliefs and desires. Using this model of practical rationality, proceduralists also typically argue that the only reasons for action we have are instrumentally valuable ones. Substantivists disagree, however, and argue that practical rationality is capable of criticizing our actions despite our desires, preferences and interests. Substantivists argue that although we have instrumental reasons for action, there are also other reasons for action we have, specific non-instrumental ones, which we are required to act for on pain of irrationality. In this thesis I argue that a substantivist model of practical rationality and reasons for action is correct, and that understanding practical rationality and reasons for action in this way has surprising consequences for moral theory.

Thesis (M.A.)--Georgia State University, 2007. / Title from file title page. Andrea Scarantino, Eddy Nahmias, committee co-chairs; Erin McClure, committee member. Electronic text (68 p.) : digital, PDF file. Description based on contents viewed Jan. 7, 2008. Includes bibliographical references (p. 63-68).

Getting Exclusionary Reasons Right offers a defense of exclusionary reasons as originally conceptualised by Joseph Raz. Exclusionary reasons are second-order reasons to refrain from acting for some reasons and are used to explain the ordered nature of practical normativity, and the various normative concepts that are said to follow from it, i.e. mandatory rules, rule-following, authority, and promises to name just a few. Exclusionary reasons differ from other kinds of defeaters in that they exclude valid reasons, i.e. reasons that still justify or make eligible the actions they count for. According to Raz, this is because excluded reasons are defeated not qua reasons, but as reasons we can act for, or that motivate, which explains why exclusionary reasons are reasons to refrain from acting for a reason. However, the coherence and distinctiveness of the idea of an exclusionary reason—understood in this way—has faced serious challenges. I take up these challenges in what follows. Chapter one presents a coherent account of exclusionary reasons as reasons to refrain from acting for a reason, or to ‘not-φ-for-p’. It both clarifies the sense in which exclusionary reasons concern motivations and motivating reasons, and rejects alternative accounts according to which exclusionary reasons have as their object other normative reasons. It is argued that when they are understood as excluding some considerations as reasons that can rationally motivate, exclusionary reasons confer value on or point to an agent’s not acting for otherwise valid reasons. That is, they justify our not being responsive to certain values on some occasions. Chapter two vindicates the notion of acting-for-a-reason on which Raz’s account relies. It considers objections which claim that not acting for otherwise valid reasons presupposes a level of control over our reasons and motivations that is incompatible with the rational constraints on attitudes (beliefs, intentions, etc.), and shows how exclusionary reasons, as they are restated in chapter one, avoids them. Perhaps surprisingly, it is argued that instances where exclusionary reasons are relevant, when properly understood, are not instances where reasoning about what we ought to do involves choice. Getting Exclusionary Reasons Right concludes by considering the implications the account offered herein has for rationalist approaches to obligations and authority. Namely, it makes clear how fully rational agents can ever be moved to act for, or out of an awareness of their obligations. / Thesis / Master of Arts (MA) / Getting Exclusionary Reasons Right investigates the distinctiveness and coherence of the idea of an exclusionary reason—a reason to not act for other reasons (i.e. promises, rules, commands, etc.). It first defends exclusionary reasons as reasons to ‘refrain from acting for some reason(s)’. Understood in this way, exclusionary reasons are relevant where it matters not just what we choose to do, but how we choose to do it. Promises, rules, commands, etc. are features of the world that make it valuable to or justify our not acting for otherwise good reasons when they apply. It then considers what ‘refraining from acting for some reason(s)’ consists in. While exclusionary reasons are thought to be reasons to have motivations of certain kinds, they are not reasons to choose to be motivated in some way. They are instead, reasons that determine for us the reasons we ought to act for. It is argued that while there are some instances where determining what we have reason to do is up to us, exclusion is not one of them. Getting Exclusionary Reasons Right concludes by considering the implications the account offered herein has for rationalist approaches to obligations and authority.

Nietzsche's view of Socrates has been studied at length by a number of scholars, and yet the accounts resulting from these studies, even when descriptively correct, have not given a full explanation of the relationship between the two philosophers. More specifically, they fail to clarify the proper connection between Nietzsche and Socrates in terms of fundamental aspects of Nietzsche's thought, especially in terms of his view of reason. The most influential interpretation of Nietzsche's relationship to Socrates comes from Kaufmann, who claims that Nietzsche's view of Socrates is one of pure admiration. More recently, scholars such as Nehamas have corrected Kaufmann's flawed interpretation. Although Nehamas has properly understood Nietzsche's view of Socrates to be one of ambivalence, his interpretation is wanting in that it provides only a partial explanation of this ambivalence. My argument will take the following form. I will first establish in Chapters 2-5 (A) Nietzsche's ambivalence toward Socrates. Then, independently of that discussion, I will reveal in Chapter 6 (B) his ambivalence toward reason. The strict parallelism between these two manifestations of ambivalence in Nietzsche will permit me to make the claim that (B) explains (A). By this analysis I will demonstrate that Nietzsche is not only positive and negative in his assessments of both Socrates and reason, but that he is ambivalent to both for the same reasons. More specifically, for Nietzsche, Socrates' emphasis upon dialectical reason as the one and only medium for attaining eudaimonia is ultimately nihilistic. It stands as a singular example of the variety of nihilistic practices that emphasize one perspective over all others; and to deny perspective, is, for Nietzsche, to deny life itself. Thus Nietzsche understands such practices, among which he includes Christianity, ethical objectivism, and Plato's metaphysics, as a misuse of reason. However, the appropriate use of reason involves experimenting with other modes of expression such as aphorisms, the performing arts, and poetry, which grant the individual as much moral and intellectual freedom as necessary so that they may affirm life in the manner they find most satisfying and rewarding. Hence, it is only through a thorough investigation of Nietzsche's view of reason that his ambivalence toward Socrates can be fully understood, namely, as a manifestation of his ambivalence to reason. / Master of Arts

Thesis (PhD)--Stellenbosch University, 2015. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Practical reason can help make sense of the decisions that face humankind in a complex planetary age, and notably so regarding the development and use of technology. Human agency and functioning as a self-understanding person, as well as certain ideas related to complexity and co-evolution are crucial aspects of this side of practical reason. Exploring these aspects from different perspectives can help uncover some constructive insights into the special nature of the moral goals, and the uniquely human significance of some of our intentions and actions that inform our decision-making on the development and use of technology. The insights gained here can furthermore serve to expand certain mainstream conceptions in Western intellectual culture on the character of reason as such, which proceed from a classical, or naturalistic stance. In the latter case reason typically calls for the use of explicit criteria, and is foundational and procedural in nature. This view is important and useful. However, the model of practical argument that accompanies it paints a characteristically sceptical picture of rational choice in the moral sphere. Yet such scepticism is not always warranted. Instead, an expanded model of practical reason is called for, notably if human agency and self-understanding, as well as ideas related to complexity and co-evolution are taken seriously. In this thesis it is demonstrated that such an approach can serve to express in richer, less sceptical terms the sense of significance we find in our societal choices, and particularly so in those decisions for technology that confront humanity in an inclusive, interdependent age. In light of the above, the thesis discussion attempts to review some central naturalistic beliefs in Western intellectual culture on the nature of reason and related patterns of practical argument. The thesis aim is to point out some of their ontological and epistemological assumptions, note their particular strengths and weaknesses and relate them to models of reason employed in the natural and human sciences – especially those that concern the nature of explanation and understanding. Furthermore, these beliefs are linked to a generally sceptical, but at times unwarranted attitude towards the sphere of practical moral argument. Such matters are treated in the first two chapters of the thesis discussion. Other ways of picturing this attitude of doubt towards the moral sphere can be found in alternative notions about human agency and self-understanding, as well as from complexity and co-evolution. The concepts behind these perspectives point to certain ontological and epistemological insights which arguably take thinking beyond the normal range of naturalistic abstractions. As a result, different characterizations, or patterns, of practical reason become possible, the nature of which can help to rework the usual warrants for scepticism when it comes to judging the significance of our intentions and actions. Thinking in terms of human agency, self-understanding, complexity and co-evolution holds another advantage. These conceptualisations can also serve to formulate a defining link between practical reason and consultation, be it among individuals, communities or the institutions of society. Such ideas speak in part to emerging notions of collective maturity in the organization of human affairs, and the well-being of all peoples. More particularly, consultation can offer additional resources for replacing entrenched patterns of conflict in society with patterns that are more unifying and just. It can as well provide for a certain quality of understanding of the principles and issues involved. The exploration of these and similar ideas begins with the discussion in Chapters Three and Four, and continues into subsequent chapters. In addition to their naturalistic counterpart, these patterns of practical reason also suggest some useful notions regarding the broader import of our societal and developmental choices on a planetary scale. The thesis discussion will attempt to explore some of these ideas. Among other things, it considers the implications they have for notions of development in general viz the unfolding of humankind’s social, cultural, ethical and spiritual potential, as well as for conceptions of technology that speak to that unfolding. It will include in its study the notion of future-regarding social choices and the transformative potential of time. From there the focus will shift to what it might mean to recast existing technology aspirations in light of the urgent requirements of a co-evolving world, and with it the need to safeguard the interests of humanity as a whole. These and related topics are addressed in Chapters Five and Six. Finally, three broad questions have played an important background role in carrying out this study. First, what is the nature of the unity that exists between our capacity to know the world in an epistemological sense, and our ability to judge the moral significance of our actions? Second, on the basis of what can we make sense of our decisions about technology in so far as they might be said to contribute to an advance or a decline in human social well-being? Third, what insights can we gain into our patterns of practical reason and decisions for technology when viewed in the context of a planetary age, and considered in light of the principle of the oneness of mankind? / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die praktiese rede kan help sin maak van die besluite wat die mensdom in ʼn komplekse planetêre era in die gesig staar, veral met betrekking tot die ontwikkeling en gebruik van tegnologie. Menslike agentskap en funksionering as ’n persoon met selfbegrip, sowel as sekere idees oor kompleksiteit en ko-evolusie is almal deurslaggewende aspekte van hierdie sy van die praktiese rede. Deur hierdie aspekte vanuit verskillende perspektiewe te ondersoek, kan konstruktiewe insigte blootgelê word in die besondere aard van die morele doelwitte en die uniek-menslike betekenis van die bedoelings en handelinge wat ons besluitneming oor die ontwikkeling en gebruik van tegnologie onderlê. Die insigte wat hier verwerf word, kan daarby help om bepaalde hoofstroom-opvattings in die Westerse intellektuele kultuur oor die aard van die rede as sodanig te verruim – opvattings wat uit ’n klassieke of naturalistiese standpunt stam. Volgens laasgenoemde standpunt vereis die rede gewoonlik duidelike maatstawwe, en lê dit in wese grondslae en stel prosedures daar. Só ʼn siening is belangrik en bruikbaar, maar op grond van die model van praktiese redenering wat hiermee gepaardgaan, word ’n tipies skeptiese beeld geskets van redelike keuses binne die morele ruimte. Hierdie skeptisisme is egter nie altyd geregverdig nie. ’n Verruimde model van die praktiese rede word eerder benodig, veral as menslike agentskap en selfverstaan, asook die idees wat met kompleksiteit en ko-evolusie verband hou, ernstig opgeneem word. Só ʼn benadering kan help om die betekenis wat ons in ons maatskaplike keuses vind in ryker en minder skeptiese terme uit te druk. Dit geld veral vir daardie besluite vir tegnologie waarvoor die mensdom in ʼn inklusiewe, interafhanklike era te staan kom. In die lig hiervan is die proefskrif ‘n poging om ’n oorsig te gee van ’n paar sentrale naturalistiese opvattings binne die Westerse intellektuele kultuur oor die aard van die rede en patrone van praktiese argumentvoering wat daarmee verband hou. Die proefskrif poog om sommige van hierdie opvattings se ontologiese en epistemologiese voorveronderstellings uit te wys, hulle sterk- en swakpunte aan te toon en hulle in verband te bring met rasionele modelle wat in die natuur- en menswetenskappe gebruik word, veral dié oor die aard van verklaring en verstaan. Daarby word hierdie voorveronderstellings gekoppel aan ʼn algemeen skeptiese, maar by tye ongeregverdigde, ingesteldheid teenoor die sfeer van praktiese morele argumentvoering. Hierdie aspekte word in die eerste twee hoofstukke van die tesis behandel. Hierdie twyfel ten opsigte van die morele sfeer kan egter anders voorgestel word as alternatiewe idees oor menslike agentskap en selfverstaan in ag geneem word, asook kompleksiteit en ko-evolusie. Die begrippe wat hierdie perspektiewe ten grondslag lê, dui op bepaalde ontologiese en epistemologiese insigte wat stellig kan help dat ons denke die gebruiklike grense van naturalistiese abstraksies kan oorstyg. Die gevolg is dat die kenmerke of patrone van die praktiese rede anders verwoord kan word, wat kan bydra tot die hersiening van die gebruiklike regverdiging vir skeptisisme wanneer ons die betekenis van ons bedoelings en handelinge beoordeel. Om in terme van menslike agentskap, selfverstaan, kompleksiteit en ko-evolusie te dink, hou ook ’n verdere voordeel in. Sodanige konseptualiserings kan ook dien om ’n beslissende verband te lê tussen die praktiese rede en raadpleging [oftewel konsultasie] – of dit nou op die vlak van individue, gemeenskappe of samelewingsinstellings plaasvind. As sodanig vind hierdie gedagtes gedeeltelik aanklank by opkomende idees oor kollektiewe volwassenheid in die organisering van menslike aangeleenthede, en die strewe na die welsyn van alle samelewings wêreldwyd. In die besonder, raadpleging kan bykomende hulpmiddels bied om die ingewortelde konflikpatrone in die samelewing te help vervang met patrone wat meer verenigend en regverdig is. Dit kan ook voorsiening maak vir ʼn soort volwasse begrip van die beginsels en kwessies wat ter sprake is. Die verkenning van hierdie en verwante idees begin met die bespreking in Hoofstukke Drie en Vier en word in die daaropvolgende hoofstukke voortgesit. In onderskeiding van die naturalistiese interpretasie kan hierdie patrone van die praktiese rede vir ons ook help om die belang van ons keuses oor die samelewing en ontwikkeling op planetêre vlak in ‘n breër perspektief te plaas. Die bespreking in hierdie tesis beoog om ’n paar van hierdie idees van nader te ondersoek. Dit wil onder meer let op die implikasies van hierdie idees vir die konsep van ontwikkeling in die algemeen, met ander woorde vir die ontsluiting van die mensdom se maatskaplike, kulturele, etiese en spirituele potensiaal, asook vir die voorstellings van tegnologie wat direk op hierdie ontsluiting afgestem is. Die studie konsentreer ook op die idee van toekomsgerigte sosiale keuses en die omvormende potensiaal van tyd. Van daar verskuif die fokus na wat dit sou kon behels om bestaande tegnologiese aspirasies te herontwerp in die lig van die dringende behoefte aan ’n ko-evolusionêre wêreld, en daarmee saam die noodsaak om die belange van die mensdom in die geheel te beskerm. Hierdie en verwante onderwerpe word in Hoofstukke Vyf en Ses aangespreek. Laastens het drie oorkoepelende vrae ʼn beduidende rol gespeel as agtergrond tot die studie. Eerstens: Wat is die aard van die verband tussen ons vermoë om die wêreld in ’n epistemologiese sin te kan ken en ons vermoë om die morele betekenis van ons handelinge te kan beoordeel? Tweedens: Op grond waarvan kan ons bepaal of ons besluite oor tegnologie ‘n bydrae maak tot die bevordering van die mens se sosiale welsyn, of tot die ondermyning daarvan? Derdens: Watter insigte kan ons verkry oor ons patrone van praktiese redenering en ons besluite oor tegnologie wanneer ons dit binne die konteks van ’n planetêre era en in die lig van die beginsel van menslike eenheid beskou?

The aim of this project is to argue that practical reason governs our normative responsibilities in one voice. There are no genuine conflicts within law, none within morality, and none between law and morality. On the contrary, there are single right answers to questions about what law and morality, considered separately or together, demand. I try to show that this claim, which I refer to as the "Unity Thesis", is both ordinary and deeply valuable. It concerns the correct way to understand, judge, and reason about the normative principles our political, legal, and moral practices establish. The Unity Thesis holds that we ought to, and that we already tacitly do, regard these principles as constituting an integrated, mutually supportive practical system--a unity of principle.

This project is primarily exegetical in nature and aims to provide a rational reconstruction of the concept of moral responsibility in the work of Immanuel Kant, specifically in his Critique of Pure Reason (CPR), Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (GR), and Critique of Practical Reason (CPrR). It consists of three chapters – the first chapter interprets the concept of freedom that follows from the resolution to the Third Antinomy in the CPR. It argues that Kant is best understood here to be providing an unusual but cogent, compatibilist account of freedom that the author terms meta-compatibilism. The second chapter examines the GR and CPrR to interpret the theory of practical reason and moral agency that Kant develops in these works. This chapter concludes by evaluating what has been established about Kant’s ideas of freedom and moral agency at that point in the project, identifying some problems and objections in addition to providing some suggestions for how Kantian ethics might be adapted within a consequentialist framework. The third chapter argues that, for Kant, there are two necessary and jointly sufficient conditions (in addition to a compatibilist definition of freedom) that must obtain for an individual to qualify as responsible for her actions.

This project is primarily exegetical in nature and aims to provide a rational reconstruction of the concept of moral responsibility in the work of Immanuel Kant, specifically in his Critique of Pure Reason (CPR), Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (GR), and Critique of Practical Reason (CPrR). It consists of three chapters – the first chapter interprets the concept of freedom that follows from the resolution to the Third Antinomy in the CPR. It argues that Kant is best understood here to be providing an unusual but cogent, compatibilist account of freedom that the author terms meta-compatibilism. The second chapter examines the GR and CPrR to interpret the theory of practical reason and moral agency that Kant develops in these works. This chapter concludes by evaluating what has been established about Kant’s ideas of freedom and moral agency at that point in the project, identifying some problems and objections in addition to providing some suggestions for how Kantian ethics might be adapted within a consequentialist framework. The third chapter argues that, for Kant, there are two necessary and jointly sufficient conditions (in addition to a compatibilist definition of freedom) that must obtain for an individual to qualify as responsible for her actions.