Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Diskussion/Discussion. Replies to the Critics of A Theory of Social Action

Diskussion/Discussion. Replies to the Critics of A Theory of Social Action Abstract The paper is a reply to the critical reviews of the author’s A Theory of social Action by Anton Leist, Marvin Belzer, and Julian Nida-Rümelin in this journal. As to Leist’s main criticisms, which concern the notions of social action, social practical reasoning, individualism, and social norms, they are argued to be incorrect and unjustified. Belzer’s criticisms are on the whole well taken, and in fact all of them have been noted by the author in his later work.Belzer does not, however, consider these newest analyses and improvements. Nida-Rümelin presents some comments on the relationships between collective preferences and we- intentions. These points are correct. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Analyse & Kritik de Gruyter

Diskussion/Discussion. Replies to the Critics of A Theory of Social Action

Tuomela, Raimo
Analyse & Kritik , Volume 8 (2) – Nov 1, 1986
Download PDF
13 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/de-gruyter/diskussion-discussion-replies-to-the-critics-of-a-theory-of-social-RQeTmwLcjf

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
de Gruyter
Copyright
Copyright © 1986 by the
ISSN
0171-5860
eISSN
2365-9858
DOI
10.1515/auk-1986-0206
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract The paper is a reply to the critical reviews of the author’s A Theory of social Action by Anton Leist, Marvin Belzer, and Julian Nida-Rümelin in this journal. As to Leist’s main criticisms, which concern the notions of social action, social practical reasoning, individualism, and social norms, they are argued to be incorrect and unjustified. Belzer’s criticisms are on the whole well taken, and in fact all of them have been noted by the author in his later work.Belzer does not, however, consider these newest analyses and improvements. Nida-Rümelin presents some comments on the relationships between collective preferences and we- intentions. These points are correct.

Journal

Analyse & Kritik – de Gruyter

Published: Nov 1, 1986

There are no references for this article.