Rationality in Action: A Symposium
John R. Searle, Barry Smith, Leo Zaibert, Josef Moural
2001
Philosophical Explorations
John Searle's book Rationality in Action presents a sophisticated and innovative account of the rationality of action. In the book Searle argues against what he calls the classical model of rationality. In the debate that follows Barry Smith challenges some implications of Searle's account. In particular, Smith suggests that Searle's distinction between observer-relative and observerindependent facts of the world is ill suited to accommodate moral concepts. Leo Zaibert takes on Searle's notion
more »
... f the gap. The gap exists between the reasons that we have for acting and our actions. According to Searle, whenever there is no gap, our actions exhibit irrationality. Zaibert points out a certain obscurity in Searle's treatment of the gap, particularly in connection with Searle's notion of 'recognitional rationality'. Finally, Josef Moural examines the interactions between Searle's theory of institutions and his theory of rationality, with emphasis on the connections between intentionality and Searle's notion of the 'background'. Appended below is a preprint version of Barry Smith's contribution to this symposium (pp. 70-75) together with Searle's response (pp. 75-77) Abstract: Searle's tool for understanding culture, law and society is the opposition between brute reality and institutional reality, or in other words between: observer-independent features of the world, such as force, mass and gravitational attraction, and observer-relative features of the world, such as money, property, marriage and government. The question posed here is: under which of these two headings do moral concepts fall? This is an important question because there are moral factsfor example pertaining to guilt and responsibilitywhich hover uncomfortably close to the boundary between the observer-relative and the observer-independent. By means of a thought experiment involving an imagined Chinese society in which guilt is determined by the random throwing of sticks, I seek to show that moral concepts threaten the foundations of Searle's philosophy of social reality.
doi:10.1080/10002001058538709
fatcat:brcovbsrpzccpmgjcej65xh3u4