Print This Post Print This Post

12:43PM Closing Remarks. Great conference! Great job by John Oberdiek, Jerry Vildostegui, and Jane Rhodes for putting this event together.

12:40PM Doug Husak: It’d be good to have a better account of responsibility, so that it is not being used to do so many things.

12:22PM Question: In Scan, Jim is actively finding out what the Captain is thinking. This is different from overhearing, as in Stated Intention Cases.

Frances: this distinction shouldn’t matter in terms of assigning responsibility.

12:16PM John Gardner: Seana sometimes treats responsibility as a matter of degree and sometimes not. She also talks about transfer and integrity. What kind of account of responsibility would incorporate all those elements?

12:02PM Frances says that Williams’s sense of integrity just means that one should stick to one’s commitments (good or bad), but Seana has a thicker notion of integrity involving making ourselves agents.

11:14AM Seana Shiffrin is the final speaker. Seana says that Frances is the monarch of intuitions. Frances replies that unfortunately we don’t live in a monarchy…

Seana is talking about responsibility/Jim and the Indians as well. Seana says that she doesn’t have Kamm’s intuitions about these cases. She argues that some offers can transfer responsibility (e.g. I offer to watch your oven), while others Offers do not (e.g. Captain’s offer).

Seana distinguishes between stated intention and stated offer. In the former, one can change one’s mind.

Seana argues that even in Offer, Jim has some responsibility. He can’t just say that he doesn’t need to explain why he shot the one.

Seana argues that the fact that the Offer is made by a diabolical agent could make a difference, because the diabolical agent doesn’t have a *right* to transfer responsibility.

Duress is the closest analogy in law to the Jim and Indians case. Seana argues that an analysis of duress shows that it does not support Frances’s interpretation of these cases.

1. Duress excuses but does not justify.
2. Offer doesn’t add anything to the situation that isn’t already in the stated intention.

Seana argues that Frances’s argument reinforces the Integrity Objection. We do give up some agency when we collaborate with evil.

10:30AM Question about the Data point model of intuitions: Intuitions = have a bunch of data points; draw a line. Two approaches. First is your data points, and the line that results from them. Second is to use the data points of many people to draw an average line. There may be a good rationale for believing in your own line rather than the average line.

Shelly: If you are color blind, you shouldn’t rely on your own perceptual capacities.

10:22AM My question: Shelly has shown that there is no a priori reason to think that intuitions are prior to rationales, but he hasn’t shown that rationales have priority over intuitions. So there is still some role to for intuitions.

Secondly, there is a more sympathetic way to look at Frances’s work. Like all great artists, they do their experiments behind doors, and just present us with their findings. So the intuitions she presents us may already be pre-filtered. In that case, it’s not going to be surprising that it seems that she accepts all her intuitions.

10:23AM Tim Scanlon: no general answer regarding whether one should go with rationale or intuitions.

10:19AM Gideon Rosen: Two ways to look at intuitions. One is to think that intuitions are psychological facts. In that case, maybe no reason to worry about them. Two intuitions= you see them as true. In that case, it’s not surprising that one would want to take them seriously.

10:13AM John Gardner points out that to be fair, Frances does consider other people’s intuitions. E.g. p. 250 on agent-relativity.

10:00AM Frances begins with an autographical answer. She was a graduate at MIT, where the methodology was to begin with a principle. But in fact they look to cases. This is what people do, according to Frances.

Frances argues that one should ask, not why she is using intuitions, but why everyone does. Her explanation: we are generally better at bottom-up rather than top-down approaches.

Also, rationales may be complex, because it is like learning a new language. They are being built from more basic intuitively plausible intuitions.

9:15AM Shelly gives an overview of this method. First, one has intuitions about a particular case. Then, one tries to come up with a principle that accommodates those intuitions. After that, one should have some rationale for why one should accept these principles. Finally, one needs to give error theory about rival theories.

Shelly says that Frances does not say enough about how one develops these rationales. One possibility: distinguish justified and full-justified. Justified if one has as intuitions about cases. To be fully justified, one has to have rationales.

Shelly asks, why not go straight to the rationales? Also, what’s the relationship between intuitions and their rationales, if they don’t fit completely? Should one rely on the intuitions or on the rationales?

Cases –> P
Rationale –> Q

What if one finds the rationale counterintuitive? Consider the Doctrine of Productive Purity. Shelly says it is so complex it seems counterintuitive. Also, it seems hard to apply this doctrine.

Shelly argues that a better approach may be to find rationales without worrying too much about whether they fit all of our intuitions.

Kamm might say that it’s hard to grasp rationales without cases. Shelly argues firstly that there’s no problem with grasping the rationales. One may not like the implications of a particular rationale, but that doesn’t mean that one doesn’t grasp it. Secondly, why think that intuitions has priority over rationales? Why couldn’t the relationship be symmetrical?

Frances doesn’t attend to other people’s intuitions. Why not? First, not everyone has the same intuitions. So what is the philosophical interest in mapping out her own intuitions?

Frances might resort to philosophical expertise. Shelly argues that another possibility is seeing things that aren’t there.

9:00AM Shelly Kagan is the first speaker of the day. He’ll be talking about Kamm’s intuitive method.


Comments are closed.

Post a comment

Name: (required)

Email Address: (required) (will not be published)



(Spamcheck Enabled)

This work is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0.