Reason-giving as an act of recognition
View/ Open
Oliveira De Sousa2017.pdf (1.798Mb)
Date
29/11/2017Item status
Restricted AccessEmbargo end date
31/12/2100Author
Oliveira de Sousa, Felipe
Metadata
Abstract
This thesis defends the claim that reason-giving is a discrete type of speech act
(of an expressive kind) that has a distinctive value. It further argues that this
value is best understood in terms of recognition, rather than justification, and
that it is intrinsic to reason-giving. Its main aim is to argue against the
commonly-held view that the main, sometimes the only, value to reason-giving
lies in its capacity to provide justification (and in the related claim that if reasons
cannot justify, then reason-giving has no value). The argument presented is
intended to support that recognition (of a certain type) is a value that reason-giving
has independently from any other value that it might or might not have –
including justification; and hence, that reason-giving has a certain distinctive
value that is not predicated upon a capacity for actually achieving justification.
In particular, this thesis argues, based on speech act theory and on the concept of
recognition, that this value is best understood as consisting in the expression of a
particular type of recognition for the other. To establish this claim, in chapter
one, it begins by setting out the standard view: that the value of reason-giving
lies in its capacity to justify, and analyses some of the moves that have been
made in the literature when the connection between reason-giving and
justification breaks down. In chapters two to four, it uses speech act theory to
analyse the acts of arguing and reason-giving, and to argue that reason-giving is
a discrete speech act that has features in common with but is not reducible to
arguing. Finally, in chapter five, it defends the claim that reason-giving has an
intrinsic value, and that this value is best understood as an expressive value:
namely, the expression of recognition for the other as a rational being (which is a
valuable feature of the other’s humanity); and that it has this value regardless of
whether the reasons in question are “good” from a justificatory standpoint.