Advertisement

Case Study: Carroll’s Tortoise

  • Jan Willem WielandEmail author
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Philosophy book series (BRIEFSPHILOSOPH)

Abstract

It is often controversial whether a certain infinite regress is generated in the first place. In this chapter, I will present a case study to illustrate this kind of controversy in some detail: a recent application of Lewis Carroll’s famous case to the debate on rationality. The main question throughout this chapter will be: is the regress suggested by Carroll’s Tortoise indeed generated? As we will see, this is a delicate issue and it is easy to be mistaken. At the end of the chapter, I will formulate a straightforward tool to check whether or not a given regress is generated.

Keywords

Regress Rationality Attitude Obligation Tortoise 

References

  1. Blackburn, S. 1995. Practical tortoise raising. Mind 104: 695–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Broome, J. 2002. Practical reasoning. In Reason and nature. Essays in the theory of rationality, eds. J. Bermùdez and A. Millar, 85–111. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  3. Broome, J. 2005. Does rationality give us reasons? Philosophical Issues 15: 321–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brunero, J. 2005. Instrumental rationality and Carroll’s tortoise. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 8: 557–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carroll, L. 1895. What the tortoise said to Achilles. Mind 4: 278–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dreier, J. 2001. Humean doubts about categorical imperatives. In Varieties of practical reasoning, ed. E. Millgram, 27–47. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  7. Jollimore, T. 2005. Why is instrumental rationality rational? Canadian Journal of Philosophy 35: 289–307.Google Scholar
  8. Kolodny, N. 2005. Why be rational? Mind 114: 509–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Railton, P. 1997. On the hypothetical and non-hypothetical in reasoning about belief and action. In Ethics and practical reason, eds. G. Cullity et al., 53–79. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  10. Ryle, G. 1950. ‘If’, ‘so’, and ‘because’. In Philosophical analysis, ed. M. Black, 302–318. Ithaca: CUP.Google Scholar
  11. Schueler, G.F. 1995. Why ‘oughts’ are not facts (or what the tortoise and Achilles taught Mrs. Ganderhoot and me about practical reason). Mind 104: 713–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Schwartz, J. 2010. Do hypothetical imperatives require categorical imperatives? European Journal of Philosophy 18: 84–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Smiley, T. 1995. A tale of two tortoises. Mind 104: 725–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Streumer, B. 2010. Practical reasoning. In A companion to the philosophy of action, eds. T. O’Connor and C. Sandis, 244–251. Malden: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Stroud, B. 1979. Inference, belief, and understanding. Mind 88: 179–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Thomson, J.F. 1960. What Achilles should have said to the tortoise. Ratio 3: 95–105.Google Scholar
  17. Way, J. 2010. The normativity of rationality. Philosophy Compass 5: 1057–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wedgwood, R. 2005. Railton on normativity. Philosophical Studies 126: 463–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wieland, J.W. 2013. What Carroll’s tortoise actually proves. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16: 983–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.VU University AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations