Abstract
What we do, how we act or behave in our lives with regard to ourselves or to others, is on one level certainly determined by our felt needs and wants, as instinct drives us, as inclination bids us do; but on another level is, or can be, influenced by reason or rational reflection, as when we consider what we should do, or why, or when we think about our choices as choices or about our actions in the light of their objectives or effects. Without this capacity to reason about, and in this way to direct or guide, our actions, we would have no sense of what it means to act, to act for a purpose, nor of the evidence upon which we act, nor of rules or principles that distinguish between right and wrong actions; we would only have feelings and desires, doing our things not as self-conscious or self-starting individuals but as animals or plants do. Human action would be scarcely distinguishable from bodily movements, from such things as falling down or falling sick which are physical events but are not actions; for human actions, precisely because they are guided or guidable by reasons, also offer themselves to being judged as to how well or wisely we act, or how ill or foolishly.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Of course if a rule or reason is intelligible, it will also be informative, but the converse is not true: S. Körner, Categorical Frameworks (Oxford: Blackwell, 1970) p. 63.
This is sometimes called an ‘anankastic’ proposition. See G. H. von Wright, Norm and Action (London: 1963) p. 10, where technical are further distinguished from hypothetical rules, e.g. ‘If the dog barks, don’t run’, a sentence normally used for prescribing a certain mode of conduct should a certain contingency happen. Whether von Wright helpfully classifies the various kinds of rules in the way he does is another question; he does seem to lack a general framework or theory to justify his particular classification, a criticism already made by Alf Ross, Directives and Norms (London: 1968) p. 78.
T. Beardsworth, “’Ought’ and Rules” (1970) 45, Philosophy, pp. 240–1.
For ‘appetitive’ questions, see A. Quinton, The Nature of Things (London: 1973) p. 360.
J. R. Searle, Speech Acts (Cambridge: 1969) pp. 50–52.
SeeJ. R. Cameron, “‘Ought’ and Institutional Obligation” (1971) 46, Philosophy, p. 309.
see Christopher Cherry, ‘Regulative Rules and Constitutive Rules’ (1973) 23, Phil. Quart., pp. 301, 309;
Searle, op. cit., pp. 33 — 5 who also maintains that constitutive rules make possible new forms of behaviour (such as, in particular, new games), but that regulative rules are more concerned with existing conduct (the rules against criminal or deviant behaviour being the simplest instances here). However even new rules of games do not so much create new forms of behaviour as, rather, new kinds of games; while regulative rules, too, may be concerned to change things for the future; in fact, many of our social rules do just this; of the latter one can indeed say what Kierkegaard said of life, that it ‘must be lived forwards but can only be understood backwards’. For similar criticisms of Searle, see Christopher Cherry, ‘Regulative Rules and Constitutive Rules’ (1973) 23, Phil. Quart., pp. 301, 309; G. J. Wamock, The Object of Morality (London: 1971) pp. 37–38.
See H. L. A. Hart, The Concept of Law (Oxford: 1961) p. 24;
See H. L. A. Hart, The Concept of Law (Oxford: 1961) p. 24; A. Quinton, The Nature of Things (London: 1973) p. 364.
See more fully H. N. Castaneda, ‘Ought and Moral Oughts’ (1965) 41, A.R.S.P. pp. 201, 204.
Copyright information
© 1980 S. J. Stoljar
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Stoljar, S. (1980). Reasons and Rules. In: Moral and Legal Reasoning. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-05095-6_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-05095-6_1
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-05097-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-05095-6
eBook Packages: Palgrave Religion & Philosophy CollectionPhilosophy and Religion (R0)