Titlebook: Being Apart from Reasons; The Role of Reasons Cláudio Michelon Book 2006 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006 Deliberation.Habermas.J

cleaver

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0591-3idable that it has led legal and political philosophers to seek original ways of justifying legal reasons’ worth. In contemporary jurisprudence, some of the most prominent attempts to justify the authority of legal reasons are theories that ground their authority in the procedure through which legal

minion

Shane T. Ahyong,Serena L. Wilkensts above. Those theses relate in a number of ways, the most important of which is that they are both partial answers to the central problem with which I was concerned when I began to write this book, namely: what is the legitimate role of reasons in decision-making processes? What I want to ask, in

聯(lián)想記憶

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-21571-3s not always the best path to action, there are good reasons for . to internalise the prejudice that they should always act on reasons. As we have also seen in the second chapter, the reason why . becomes so important to public decision-makers is the need for a greater amount of both impartiality and carefulness in public agency.

indignant

是他笨

1572-4395 sm (e.g Rawls).Raises an original objection to Joseph Raz’s .Being Apart from Reasons. deals with the question of how we should go about using reasons to decide what to do. More particularly, the book presents objections to the most common response given by contemporary legal and political theorists

Detoxification

擁護(hù)者

CONCLUSION,My first thesis is that there are moral reasons that apply specifically to processes and strategies of . and, more specifically, to the appropriateness of deciding what to do by means of reasoning. If that is correct it follows that it is not necessarily the case that ratiocination is always the best way to decide what to do.

BANAL

激怒某人

倔強(qiáng)不能