Original scientific paper
Instrumental Reasoning Reconsidered
APA 6th Edition
Spielthenner, G. (2008). Instrumental Reasoning Reconsidered. European Journal of Analytic Philosophy, 4 (1), 59-76. Retrieved from https://hrcak.srce.hr/93222
MLA 8th Edition
Spielthenner, Georg. "Instrumental Reasoning Reconsidered." European Journal of Analytic Philosophy, vol. 4, no. 1, 2008, pp. 59-76. https://hrcak.srce.hr/93222. Accessed 22 May 2022.
Chicago 17th Edition
Spielthenner, Georg. "Instrumental Reasoning Reconsidered." European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 4, no. 1 (2008): 59-76. https://hrcak.srce.hr/93222
Spielthenner, G. (2008). 'Instrumental Reasoning Reconsidered', European Journal of Analytic Philosophy, 4(1), pp. 59-76. Available at: https://hrcak.srce.hr/93222 (Accessed 22 May 2022)
Spielthenner G. Instrumental Reasoning Reconsidered. European Journal of Analytic Philosophy [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2022 May 22];4(1):59-76. Available from: https://hrcak.srce.hr/93222
G. Spielthenner, "Instrumental Reasoning Reconsidered", European Journal of Analytic Philosophy, vol.4, no. 1, pp. 59-76, 2008. [Online]. Available: https://hrcak.srce.hr/93222. [Accessed: 22 May 2022]
Since Aristotle it has been common among philosophers to distinguish between two fundamental types of reasoning, theoretical and practical. We do not only want to work out what is the case but also what we ought to do. This article offers a logical analysis of instrumental reasoning, which is the paradigm of practical reasoning. In the first section I discuss the major types of instrumental reasoning and show why the accounts of most authors are defective. On the basis of this discussion, I demonstrate in the second section that different types of normative conclusions are derivable from instrumental arguments and I show that it is an argument’s logical structure that determines what type of conclusion this is.
Visits: 875 *