What are rules? In this paper I develop a view of regulative rules which takes them to be a distinctive normative kind occupying a middle ground between orders and normative truths. The paradigmatic cases of regulative rules that I’m interested in are social rules like rules of etiquette and legal rules like traffic rules. On the view I’ll propose, a rule is a general normative content that is in force due to human activity: enactment by an authority or (...) acceptance by a community. Rules are unlike orders in being not necessarily communicative, not an expression’s of the giver’s will, not evaluable for sincerity, and in that they have propositional content. And they’re unlike normative truths in that they’re themselves not even truth-evaluable (though their contents are). This is because rules qua things that are in force are not like constatives which have a mind to world direction of fit, but more like performatives. Furthermore, they differ from normative truths in that their normativity is isolated from their background justification and is therefore not dependent on contributory notions like reasons coming together in a weighing explanation. As such, they occupy a middle ground between orders and normative truths, much like in H. L. A. Hart’s opinion law occupies a middle ground between “coercion” and “morality” (Hart 1961/1994). I also illustrate the virtues of this understanding of rules by showing how proper appreciation of how they differ from normative truths helps us defuse a common objection to Hart’s practice theory of rules. (shrink)

The folk picture of agency suggests that human beings have basic agency over some of their omissions. For example, someone may follow through on a decision never to support a political party without doing anything in order to make themselves omit. A number of features appear to signal their agency: the omission is not just called intentional, it is also seen as an achievement and explained in terms of the reasons for the decision. Some philosophers have tried to debunk the (...) appearance and argue that agency over omissions always proceeds from agency over actions (on the model of Ulysses ordering his crew to tie him to the mast). Others have tried to uphold the appearance by understanding basic agency over omissions on the model of their theories of action (and most often on the model of causal theories). Against both groups, I argue for a vindication of the appearance in terms of a theory of sui generis basic agency over omissions. Basic intentional omissions are the behavioral outcomes of fluent control by their agents’ intentions. When an intention to omit fluently controls for the right omission, the omission is an intentional achievement performed because of the intention. The intention appropriately regulates the agent’s behavior so as to ensure the intended omission. We can therefore see basic agency over omissions as regulative and distinct from the agency exercised over actions. (shrink)

This paper discusses several central features of Kant’s account of how regulative principles guide scientific inquiry. Specifically, it focuses on Kant’s views on what these regulative principles are, why they are justified, how they function to regulate our inquiry, and what conception of reason can support them.

This paper defends a key aspect of the Peircean conception of truth—the idea that truth is in some sense epistemically-constrained. It does so by exploring parallels between Peirce’s epistemology of inquiry and that of Wittgenstein in On Certainty. The central argument defends a Peircean claim about truth by appeal to a view shared by Peirce and Wittgenstein about the structure of reasons. This view relies on the idea that certain claims have a special epistemic status, or function as what are (...) popularly called ‘hinge propositions’. (shrink)

In the ‘Appendix to the Transcendental Dialectic’ of the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant contends that the idea of God has a positive regulative role in the systematization of empirical knowledge. But why is this regulative role assigned to this specific idea? Kant’s account is rather opaque and this question has also not received much attention in the literature. In this paper I argue that an adequate understanding of the regulative role of the idea of God depends (...) on the specific metaphysical content Kant attributes to it in the Critique and other writings. I show that neither a heuristic principle of conceptual systematicity, nor conceiving God as a hypothesis of an intelligent designer, can satisfy the demands of reason to make the unity and necessity of the laws of nature intelligible. Regarding the positive account about the metaphysical content of the idea of God, I support my argument by referring to Kant’s pre-critical discussion of the usefulness of the conception of God for the project of science, and by expounding Kant’s critical account of the necessity of the laws of nature. Thus my account sheds light on the continuity of Kant’s conception of God and his appropriation of his own rationalistic metaphysics. (shrink)

The boundary problem in psychiatry raises the difficulty of posing criteria to distinguish between what is pathological and what is not. This problem has also been one of the main sources of dispute between naturalistic and normativistic theories of mental disorders in philosophy of psychiatry. The main aim of this article is to address the boundary problem from the view known as regulative dispositionalism. According to this view, an attitude or mental faculty is a disposition, or set of cognitive, (...) phenomenal, and behavioral dispositions, that is determined by normative criteria defined and sustained within a community of social agents. I argue that regulative dispositionalism can explain why the diagnosis of some mental illnesses seems to be influenced by social norms while biological facts may still underlie mental illnesses. (shrink)

Many artificial intelligence (AI) systems currently used for decision-making are opaque, i.e., the internal factors that determine their decisions are not fully known to people due to the systems’ computational complexity. In response to this problem, several researchers have argued that human decision-making is equally opaque and since simplifying, reason-giving explanations (rather than exhaustive causal accounts) of a decision are typically viewed as sufficient in the human case, the same should hold for algorithmic decision-making. Here, I contend that this argument (...) overlooks that human decision-making is sometimes significantly more transparent and trustworthy than algorithmic decision-making. This is because when people explain their decisions by giving reasons for them, this frequently prompts those giving the reasons to govern or regulate themselves so as to think and act in ways that confirm their reason reports. AI explanation systems lack this self-regulative feature. Overlooking it when comparing algorithmic and human decision-making can result in underestimations of the transparency of human decision-making and in the development of explainable AI that may mislead people by activating generally warranted beliefs about the regulative dimension of reason-giving. (shrink)

RESUMEN El objeto de este trabajo es, por un lado, recopilar los principales estudios teóricos y filosóficos que han servido para diferenciar entre reglas regulativas y reglas constitutivas y, por otro, realizar una revisión de dichas propuestas para efectos de cuestionar la posibilidad de una distinción tajante entre ambos tipos de reglas. La primera parte del texto corresponde a una exposición de los postulados de los autores enunciados. En seguida, se formulan cuestionamientos a los criterios que se advierten en el (...) apartado precedente. Finalmente, se expone la viabilidad de una distinción concluyente entre ambos tipos de reglas. ABSTRACT The aim of this article is, on the one hand, to compile the main theoretical and philosophical studies that has been used to differentiate between regulative norms and constitutive norms, and on the other hand, to make a review of these proposals to question the possibility of a sharp distinction between both types of rules. The first part of this work is an exposition of the postulates of the mentioned authors. The second part of the text introduces questions against the criteria noted in the previous section. Finally, the feasibility of a conclusive distinction between both types of rules is exposed. (shrink)

A regulative norm for permissible defense distinguishes the conditions under which we will hold defenders to be innocent of any wrongdoing from those in which we hold them responsible for assault or manslaughter. The norm must strike a fair balance between defenders' security, on the one hand, and other agents’ legitimate claim to live without fear of suffering mistaken defensive harm, on the other. Since agents must make defensive decisions under high pressure and on only partial information, they will (...) sometimes make mistakes. We have reason to want a norm that considers a mistake permissible when it was highly likely on the evidence that defense was proportionate and necessary to avert a threat. However, adopting an evidentialist norm under non-ideal conditions is treacherous business. I briefly survey empirical data suggesting that the type and extent of bias prevalent in the US renders a straightforward evidentialist norm unjust, and thus since the legal practice in the US relies on such a norm, we must explore avenues for reform. Preferably this will take the form of adopting a modified evidential norm, and I explore some promising options. If this proves impossible, however, then we have to accept a strict regulative norm (which does not consider any mistakes permissible), as the sole just alternative. (shrink)

This paper examines the distinction between constitutive and regulative rules by way of the philosophical dispute between John Searle and Joseph Raz. These theorists disagree inasmuch as Searle claims that constitutive and regulative rules represent distinct types, while Raz argues that such a differentiation is untenable. This work acknowledges the merits of Raz’s position, but argues that Searle’s distinction between constitutive and regulative rules is sound given certain refinements. The paper argues that the distinction between constitutive and (...) regulative rules should be grounded on the rules’ distinct capacity for guidance (i.e., whether or not the rules themselves constitute normative reasons for action for subjects). (shrink)

This paper outlines a non-reductive epistemic conception of truth, compatible with an inferentialist conception of meaning. According to the non-reductive epistemic conception, truth is a regulative idea. I propose a general way of understanding the notion of “regulative idea”: a concept X is a regulative idea for a social practice P if seven principles (formulated in sections 4-10) apply to X and P. The non-reductive epistemic conception of truth consists of five statements: 1. the concept TRUE presupposes (...) the concept JUSTIFIED ASSERTION; 2. the concept JUSTIFIED ASSERTION presupposes the concept TRUE; 3.“an assertion that p is justified” does not imply “it is true that p”; 4. “it is true that p” does not imply “an assertion that p is justifiable”; 5. TRUE is a regulative idea for assertoric practice. Statement 5 is explained by bringing together the seven general principles about regulativity and applying them to the concept TRUE and assertoric practice. (shrink)

Following Ballantyne, we can distinguish between descriptive and regulative epistemology. Whereas descriptive epistemology analyzes epistemic categories such as knowledge, justified belief, or evidence, regulative epistemology attempts to guide our thinking. In this paper, we argue that regulative epistemologists should focus their attention on what we call epistemic prudence. Our argument proceeds as follows: First, we lay out an objection to virtue-based regulative epistemology that is analogous to the no-guidance objection to virtue ethics. According to this objection, (...) virtue-based regulative epistemology cannot offer us useful guidance in our deliberations, because an abstract knowledge of virtue does not tell us what we should do here and now, especially in hard cases. We respond to this objection by showing that our making good epistemic decisions cannot simply be a matter of our following the right epistemic rules. In order to reliably inquire and deliberate well, we need epistemic prudence. Thus, while virtue-based regulative epistemology fails to determine how we should inquire and resolve deliberation here and now, this is also true of norm-based regulative epistemology. The upshot of this argument is that regulative epistemologists should focus their attention on understanding the nature of epistemic prudence and on understanding how we can promote its development in ourselves and others. (shrink)

In his lectures on Logic and Metaphysics, Kant distinguishes between logical and real essences. While the former is related to concepts and is knowable, the latter is related to things and is unknowable. In this paper, I argue that the unknowability is explained by the modal characteristic of real essences as a necessitating ground on which a priori knowledge is impossible. I also show how this claim is related to the unknowable necessity of particular laws of nature. Since laws of (...) nature are conceived as grounded in real essences, the unknowability of the latter is equivalent to Kant's other claim that there can be no knowledge of the necessity of particular laws of nature. Necessity can only be known a priori, and therefore, the necessity of particular laws is only assumed and conceived as grounded in something unknowable, a real essence. This conclusion will allow me to attribute to Kant a position I label as “regulative essentialism”, meaning that real essences have an indispensable role in accordance with the rational interest to explain nature as a system of laws and natural kinds, combined with an epistemic humility about the correspondence of our empirical concepts to real essences. (shrink)

La critique de la métaphysique dans la Dialectique transcendantale de la Critique de la raison pure débouche sur la doctrine de l’usage régulateur des idées transcendantales de la raison pure. La théorie de l’usage régulateur de ces idées est relativement abstraite et demande à être clarifiée. Kant affirme que ces idées ont un usage dans les sciences empiriques. Cependant il ne spécifie pas quel usage les sciences peuvent faire de ces idées. Dans cet article je compare les caractéristiques des idées (...) transcendantales aux caractéristiques des modèles scientifiques. Ainsi la thèse principale de mon article est que la théorie kantienne de l’usage régulateur des idées est comparable à la modélisation en science. C’est ce que je nomme « l’approche modélisatrice des idées transcendantales chez Kant ». D’après cette interprétation, on trouve chez ce dernier une conception relativement élaborée de la modélisation que l’on peut comprendre comme signifiant que la métaphysique fournit aux sciences les formes les plus universelles de modèles qui peuvent être spécifiés pour des objectifs particuliers par les sciences. (shrink)

In the article, Husserl’s phenomenology is presented a position being in between absolutism and relativism. According to absolutism, absolute truth is possible as a correlate of the adequacy of cognition. However, from the perspective of relativism, cognition is inadequate and, thus, absolute truth is unavailable. Husserl goes beyond the alternative of absolutism and relativism, maintaining the notion of an absolute truth as a regulative idea. Avoiding absolutism, phenomenology does not change into relativism because it treats the adequacy of cognition (...) as a regulative idea which also leads to retaining the truth as an idea as such. In phenomenology, the truth must be understood in the perspective of the adequacy of obviousness and because such adequacy in cognition does not really happen, both the truth and adequacy shall be regarded as regulative ideas. (shrink)

What is it to share the same concept? The question is an important one since sharing the same concept explains our ability to non-accidentally coordinate on the same topic over time and between individuals. Moreover, concept identity grounds key logical relations among thought contents such as samesaying, contradiction, validity, and entailment. Finally, an account of concept identity is crucial to explaining and justifying epistemic efforts to better understand the precise contents of our thoughts. The key question, then, is what psychological (...) and social facts could play these roles? Elsewhere, we have argued for a specific relational model of concept identity, the connectedness model (e.g. Schroeter 2012, Schroeter and Schroeter 2014, 2015). Our aim in this chapter is to further explain the motivations behind that account, to address worries about transitivity and vagueness, and to contrast our approach with closely related accounts of concept identity developed by François Recanati and Simon Prosser. -/- What’s distinctive of our approach is that we seek to vindicate the first-person epistemic perspective of concept users. Concepts, on our account, play a crucial normative role in setting regulative ideals for the representational practices in which individual subjects participate. This focus on the normative role of concepts – as opposed to a purely causal explanatory role – motivates our approach to concept identity and our toleration of vagueness and borderline cases. (shrink)

This chapter considers an important challenge to arguments from particularism from Ridge and McKeever’s claim that generalism is our ‘regulative ideal’. They argue, from a dialectically neutral starting point, that the truth or otherwise of reasons holism has no bearing on the truth of generalism. The truth of generalism can be established from the fact that we possess ordinary moral knowledge either by a transcendental argument or by an inference to the best explanation. This chapter examines both of these (...) arguments and argues that neither of them is successful. Generalism has no role in an account of sound ethical judgement, not even as a regulative ideal. (shrink)

Kant maintains that particular laws of nature are discovered empirically yet are taken to be necessary. This raises the question of how to account for their necessity. Two leading interpretations emerged: the best system account (BSA) and the necessitation account (NA). BSA provides a methodological-epistemological account for the regularities that can be justifiably considered as laws of nature. On the other hand, NA provides an account of what it is to be a law of nature in terms of metaphysical explanatory (...) grounds. While the interpretations are different in nature, there is textual evidence in Kant for both. In this paper, I aim to explain the duality of the interpretations and reconcile them. I present how they are intertwined in Kant’s works, first by pointing out the metaphysical content of the idea of God which grounds the unity and necessity of the laws of nature. Secondly, I argue that both accounts share an epistemic status as regulative ideas which I interpret as expressing rational norms of scientific inquiry. Thus, Kant maintains that scientific inquiry encompasses a single norm of explanation in which the systematicity and necessity of the laws of nature are interdependent. This norm is expressed in metaphysical concepts such as essences, powers, and most importantly the regulative idea of God. Finally, I consider the relevance of this unified account to contemporary debates about the laws of nature by suggesting that the Kantian regulative framework could explain and deflate questionable ontological commitments by identifying metaphysical terms as expressions of norms. (shrink)

Kant's doctrine of the radical evil in human nature invites at least two serious worries: first, it is unclear how Kant could establish the claim that all human beings adopt an evil maxim; second, this claim seems to conflict with central features of Kant's doctrine of freedom. I argue, via criticisms of various charitable interpretations, that these problems are indeed insuperable if we read Kant as trying to establish that all human beings are evil as a matter of fact. I (...) then develop an alternative reading that avoids these problems. On my reading, Kant transforms the complaint that humans are evil into a prescriptive regulative principle. Although we cannot know whether all human beings really are evil, we ought to presuppose “inextirpable” human evil in the context of moral “ascetic”, the practical field that answers to the duty of moral self-perfection and that aims at the development of virtue. (shrink)

Appeals to intersectionality serve to remind us that social categories like race and gender cannot be adequately understood independently from each other. But what, exactly, is the intersectional thesis a thesis about? Answers to this question are remarkably diverse. Intersectionality is variously understood as a claim about the nature of social kinds, oppression, or experience ; about the limits of antidiscrimination law or identity politics ; or about the importance of fuzzy sets, multifactor analysis, or causal modeling in social science.

The question of Kant’s relation to Spinozist thought has been virtually ignored over the years. I analyze Kant’s pre-critical ‘possibility-proof’ of God’s existence, elaborated in the Beweisgrund, as well as the echoes that this proof has in the first Critique, in beginning to uncover the connection between Kant’s thought and Spinoza’s. Kant’s espousal of the Principle of Sufficient Reason [PSR] for the analysis of modality during the pre-critical period committed him, I argue, to Spinozist substance monism. Much textual evidence suggests (...) that he was aware of this commitment. However, by transforming the PSR into a regulative principle the critical Kant has transformed his pre-critical proof into a regulative ideal. He is thereby (consciously) committed, I argue, to regulative Spinozism. (shrink)

My purposes in this paper are to explain the constitutive-regulative distinction as set out by Kant in the Dialectic and Methodology, and to note its reappearance in contemporary philosophy.

The paradox of dogmatism is an argument to the effect that any subject who knows that P can thereby know that any counterevidence is misleading and, therefore, the subject ought to ignore that counterevidence. Regulative epistemology is the effort to develop principles to guide inquiry. The paradox of dogmatism is not typically understood as a regulative problem. But that is an illuminating way to view it. Understood that way, this paper offers a solution grounded in an epistemic policy (...) of “following the argument wherever it leads.”. (shrink)

From the ferment of recent debates about the intellectual virtues, Roberts and Wood develop an approach they call 'regulative epistemology', exploring the connection between knowledge and intellectual virtue. In the course of their argument they analyse particular virtues of intellectual life - such as courage, generosity, and humility - in detail.

This discussion aims to give a normative theoretical basis for a “best judgment” model of surrogate decision making rooted in a regulative ideal of love. Currently, there are two basic models of surrogate decision making for incompetent patients: the “substituted judgment” model and the “best interests” model. The former draws on the value of autonomy and responds with respect; the latter draws on the value of welfare and responds with beneficence. It can be difficult to determine which of these (...) two models is more appropriate for a given patient, and both approaches may seem inadequate for a surrogate who loves the patient. The proposed “best judgment” model effectively draws on the values incorporated in each of the traditional standards, but does so because these values are important to someone who loves a patient, since love responds to the patient as the specific person she is. (shrink)

The antinomy of teleological judgment has increasingly been understood as a conflict between regulative principles. But it is not clear why regulative principles can be in conflict at all, since Kant otherwise takes the realization that two conflicting principles are regulative to be sufficient to resolve an antinomy. I argue that in Kant’s view regulative principles do not conflict with one another only if they are reducible to reason’s interest in systematicity. Given that the principles of (...) this antinomy do conflict, they must not be reducible to reason’s interest in systematicity. I argue that teleology is thus not reducible to reason’s interest because it is fundamentally unlawful. I then use this irreducibility to account for Kant’s appeal to the supersensible in this context. (shrink)

The structure and regulative function of the cognitive styles: a new theory The organization of human cognitive styles can be described as a kind of functional system or as an holon. In this framework it is possible to propose a new theoretical base for classifying the primary cognitive styles. The fundamental theoretical thesis is that for all styles there is one common mechanism of forming and scanning the perceptual and memory field induced by the situation, and by the differences (...) in the manner of carrying out the processes of field scanning /codes interfering depend on the range of conceptual equivalency and cognitive control of behavior. In the functional describing of the basic set of cognitive styles we must take into account three elements of the chain: neurobiological modules ® organization of cognitive holon ® behavioral manifestation of styles. (shrink)

What is it for thoughts to redeploy the same concept? Elsewhere, we have argued for a specific relational model of concept identity, the _connectedness model_. Our aims in this chapter are to explain the motivations behind that account, to address worries about transitivity and vagueness, and to contrast our approach with closely related accounts of concept identity. What’s distinctive of our approach to sameness of concept is that we seek to vindicate the first-person epistemic perspective of concept users on logical (...) relations and epistemic self-regulation. Concepts, we argue, play a crucial normative role in setting _regulative ideals_ for the representational practices in which individual subjects participate. This focus on the normative role of concepts—as opposed to a purely causal-explanatory role—motivates our approach to concept identity and our approach to borderline cases of concept identity. (shrink)

John Searle’s distinction between regulative and constitutive rules is an enduringly important contribution to our understanding of rules, of language, and of rule-based or rule-bounded institutions. It is important to add to Searle’s account, however, by pointing out the regulative function of constitutive rules. Many human activities and goals can be pursued in multiple ways, but constituting the approved or official way of doing things, as is so common in law, has the effect of making alternatives less eligible, (...) less available, or less permitted, all of which can be seen as the regulative overhang of constitutive rules. (shrink)

This article examines the relationship in Kant between transcendental laws and empirical laws (focusing on causal laws), and then brings a particular interpretation of that issue to bear on familiar puzzles concerning the status of the regulative maxims of reason and reflective judgment. It is argued that the 'indeterminate objective validity' possessed by the regulative maxims derives ultimately from strictly constitutive demands of understanding.

It is an essential part of Kant's conception of regulative principles and ideas that those principles and ideas are in a certain sense indeterminate. The relevant sense of indeterminacy is cashed out in a section in the Antinomies where Kant says that the regress of conditions of experience forms not a “regressus in infinitum” but a “regressus in indefinitum.” The mathematics that Kant appears to rely on in making this distinction turns out to be problematic, as Jonathan Bennett showed (...) long ago. But I suggest that despite this, there is another mathematically legitimate way to make Kant's point, one enunciated by, among others, Michael Dummett. This reading is corroborated, I suggest, by Kant's conception of reason as a radically open-ended endeavor. -/- . (shrink)

The traditional debate about moral dilemmas concerns whether there are circumstances in which an agent is subject to two obligations that cannot both be fulfilled. Realists maintain there are. Irrealists deny this. Here I defend an alternative, methodologically-oriented position wherein the denial of genuine moral dilemmas functions as a regulative ideal for moral deliberation and practice. That is, moral inquiry and deliberation operate on the implicit assumption that there are no genuine moral dilemmas. This view is superior to both (...) realism and irrealism in accounting for moral residue and other crucial phenomenological dimensions of our experience of moral dilemmas. (shrink)

I wish to advocate a reorientation of epistemology. Lest anyone maintain that the enterprise I urge is not epistemology at all (even part of epistemology), I call this enterprise by a slightly different name: epistemics. Despite this terminological concession, I believe that the inquiry I advocate is significantly continuous with traditional epistemology. Like much of past epistemology, it would seek to regulate or guide our intellectual activities. It would try to lay down principles or suggestions for how to conduct our (...) cognitive affairs. The contrast with traditional epistemology – at least "analytic" epistemology of the twentieth century – would be its close alliance with the psychology of cognition. The basic premise of epistemics is that one cannot give the best advice about intellectual operations without detailed information about mental processes. Since these processes are most illuminatingly studied by cognitive psychology, epistemics would go hand in hand with empirical investigation of our "information-processing" mechanisms. (shrink)