DISCUSSION

Practical Knowledge and Foreseen Side Effects

Volume 6, Number 1, March 2012, Pages 1–7
https://doi.org/10.26556/jesp.v6i1.147

Abstract

On Anscombe’s view, intentional actions are characterized by a specific type of knowledge (practical knowledge) possessed by the agents that perform them. Recently, interest in Anscombean action theory has been renewed. Sarah Paul argues that Anscombean action theory faces a serious problem: It fails to discriminate between an action’s intended aim or purpose and its foreseen side effects. Since Anscombeans conceive practical knowledge as the formal cause of intentional actions, Paul dubs this a problem of “deviant formal causation.” In this paper I will show that Anscombean action theory can escape Paul’s critique by employing a sufficiently developed conception of practical knowledge. It will turn out that Anscombeans can precisely capture the difference between intended aim and foreseen side effect in terms of differences in the agent’s knowledge.
Copyright © 2012 Niels van Miltenburg
|

Elizabeth Anscombe on Murder

Joshua Stuchlik Stuchlik

Intelligibility and the Guise of the Good

Paul Boswell

Answerability Without Answers

Graham Hubbs

Side Effects and the Structure of Deliberation

Grant Rozeboom

Radical Cognitivism About Practical Reason

William Ratoff

Backsliding and Bad Faith: Aspiration, Disavowal, and (Residual) Practical Identities

Justin F. White

Moral Disagreement and Practical Direction

Ragnar Francén

Evolution, Utilitarianism, and Normative Uncertainty: The Practical Significance of Debunking Arguments

Andreas L. Mogensen and William MacAskill

Practical Commitment in Normative Discourse

Pekka Väyrynen

Practical Reason Not as Such

Kenneth Walden

Against Scanlon’s Theory of the Strength of Practical Reasons

Eric Sampson

Evolutionary Debunking, Moral Realism and Moral Knowledge

Russ Shafer-Landau