TALK POSTPONED: It's All Too Hard!

Wednesday 13 March - apologies this colloquium talk by Aness has been postponed due to illness.

I cannot determine whether a 14-premise argument is valid in less than a second even if a computer can. Am I, to this extent, irrational? I argue that ‘yes’ is a good answer, if we want the concept of rationality to play a worthwhile theoretical role in an account of reasoning. Just as rationality on my account seems too hard to achieve, so, it is argued, ethical theories which require me to give to charity until it hurts are too demanding to be taken seriously. My argument exploits parallels between rationality and morality as well as analyses of the demandingness objection levelled against many ethical theories. I argue that we should distinguish norms which set the standards of right action and rational deliberation from norms against which agents should be evaluated and that this distinction allows us to respond to the demandingness objection. This is because the standards that determine rationality of a deliberation (or a deliberation process) and moral rightness of an act come apart from what the agent ought to do, all things considered as well as from how we should evaluate agents. My account also has a lot to say about cakes!

Information about Assistant Professor Webster can be found at https://www.anesswebster.com/home