Publications of Huoranszki, F.

Erkölcsi felelősség és gyakorlati modalitások

According to many contemporary accounts, although responsibility requires that agents’ actions be responsive to their reasons, it does not always require that agents be able to do otherwise in the particular situation in which they act. Some believe that the ability to act otherwise is a necessary condition of responsibility only when one performs a blameworthy action, whereas others, following Frankfurt, believe that the ability to act otherwise is never a condition of responsibility. However, there are many ways in which one can act for a reason, some of them are compatible with the agent’s responsibility, and some of them are not. The paper argues that only those agents who have the ability to act otherwise can act for or against some reason in a way that is compatible with their responsibility.

Freedom of the Will: A Conditional Analysis

The book provides a novel interpretation of G. E. Moore’s famous conditional analysis of free will and discusses several questions about the meaning of free will and its significance for moral responsibility. Although Moore’ theory has a strong initial appeal, most metaphysicians believe that there are conclusive arguments against it. Huoranszki argues that the importance of conditional analysis must be reevaluated in light of some recent developments in the theory of dispositions. The original analysis can be amended so that the revised conditional account is not only a good response to determinist worries about the possibility of free will, but it can also explain the sense in which free will is an important condition of moral responsibility. This study addresses three fundamental issues about free will as a metaphysical condition of responsibility. First, the book explains why agents are responsible for their actions or omissions only if they have the ability to do otherwise and shows that the relevant ability is best captured by the revised conditional analysis. Second, it aims to clarify the relation between agents’ free will and their rational capacities. It argues that free will as a condition of responsibility must be understood in terms of agents’ ability to do otherwise rather than in terms of their capacity to respond to reasons. Finally, the book explains in which sense responsibility requires self-determination and argues that it is compatible with agents’ limited capacity to control their own character, reasons, and motives.

Gyakorlati racionalitás és akaratgyengeség

The paper argues that the capacity of practical rationality can be best understood by investigating the conditions under which we would regard human behavior irrational. Practical rationality does not, in general, require that agents do what they judge best, since many cases such judgements are not available. But, contrary to some recent opinions, actions not controlled by agents’ judgement about the value of their own (future) actions when such a judgment is available cannot be practicaly rational. What practical rationality requires is that agents do not revise their intentions unless they have sufficient reason for doing so.

Reasons and passions

Abstract Jonathan Dancy has argued that agents’ reasons for their actions are facts or features of the situations rather than their psychological states. The purpose of the paper is to show that even if we grant that this is so in most of the cases, there is a class of mental states that can be reasons. Although beliefs and desires are not reasons for actions, some emotional states—like loving, liking or disliking someone—can generate reasons. The distinctive feature of these states is that their content is a particular, and not a proposition. Hence in certain situations their love or admiration can provide agents with reasons to do one particular thing rather than another.

Fate, freedom and contingency

Abstract Argument for fatalism attempts to prove that free choice is a logical or conceptual impossibility. The paper argues that the first two premises of the argument are sound: propositions are either true or false and they have their truth-value eternally. But the claim that from the fatalistic premises with the introduction of some innocent further premise dire consequences follow as regards to the possibility of free choice is false. The introduced premise, which establishes the connection between the first two premises (which are about the nature of propositions) and the concept of free choice is not innocent. It creates the impression that the truth of certain propositions can somehow determine the occurrence of certain events. But no proposition can have such an effect since the counterfactuals “If proposition P were true, event E would happen” does not say anything about determination. The argument for fatalism is, however, not a boring sophism. It does reveal something about the nature of propositional representation. It shows that each proposition represents necessarily the fact what it represents, i.e. it shows that propositions have their truth conditions non-contingently. But from this nothing follows as regards to the contingent nature of the facts represented. On the bases of the first two premises of the argument for fatalism we cannot infer to the impossibility of free choice. The argument for fatalism should not be interpreted as an attempt to prove on purely logical or conceptual grounds that we do not have the ability to influence future events by our choices. But it could be used to show something about the nature of propositional representation.

Common Sense and the Theory of Human Behaviour

I offer an analysis of Reid's notion of the will. Naturalism in the philosophy of action is defined as the attempt to eliminate the capacity of will and to reduce volition to some class of appetite or desire. Reid's arguments show, however, that volition plays a particular role in deliberation which cannot be reduced to some form of motivation present at the time of action. Deliberation is understood as an action over which the agent has control. Will is a higher-order mental capacity enabling us to control our own attitudes, decisions and actions. Reid investigates several distinct forms of this control. I conclude with some remarks about the relation between Reid's arguments about the function of the will and his moral rationalism.

Book Review: Earthbound Thoughts – Karl Mannheim: A konzervativizmus

Mannheim, K. (1994). A konzervativizmus: Tanulmány a tudás szociológiájáról. Budapest: Cserépfalvi.

Book Review: Röghöz kötött gondolatok – Karl Mannheim: A konzervativizmus

Mannheim, K. (1994). A konzervativizmus: Tanulmány a tudás szociológiájáról. Budapest: Cserépfalvi.

Book Review: Harmadik út a tudományfilozófiában – György Márkus: Kultúra és modernitás

Márkus, G. (1992). Kultúra és modernitás. Hermeneutikai kísérletek. Budapest: T-Twins Kiadó

Book Review: Isaiah Berlin: Négy esszé a szabadságról

Berlin, I., & Ferenc, E. (1990). Négy esszé a szabadságról. [Budapest]: Európa Könyvkiadó.