Element contents
Series: Elements in Ethics
Morality and Practical Reasons
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 February 2021
Summary
As Socrates famously noted, there is no more important question than how we ought to live. The answer to this question depends on how the reasons that we have for living in various different ways combine and compete. To illustrate, suppose that I've just received a substantial raise. What should I do with the extra money? I have most moral reason to donate it to effective charities but most self-interested reason to spend it on luxuries for myself. So, whether I should live my life as I have most moral reason to live it or as I have most self-interested reason to live it depends on how these and other sorts of reasons combine and compete to determine what I have most reason to do, all things considered. This Element seeks to figure out how different sorts of reasons combine and compete to determine how we ought to live.
Information
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Series: Elements in EthicsOnline ISBN: 9781108580724Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 04 March 2021
References
Archer, A. (2014). “Moral Rationalism without Overridingness.” Ratio 27: 100–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baggini, J. (2015). “A New Breed of Hardcore Altruists Are Changing the Way We Think about Charity. But Can Generosity Go too Far?” New Statesman, <www.newstatesman.com/economics/2015/08/new-breed-hardcore-altruists-are-changing-way-we-think-about-charity-can>..>Google Scholar
Berg, A. (Manuscript). “How and Why to Be Well-Rounded.”Google Scholar
Cohen, S. (1999). “Contextualism, Skepticism, and the Structure of Reasons.” Philosophical Perspectives 13: 57–89.Google Scholar
Copp, D. (1997). “The Ring of Gyges: Overridingness and the Unity of Reason.” Social Philosophy and Policy 14: 86–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copp, D. (2009). “Toward a Pluralist and Teleological Theory of Normativity.” Philosophical Issues 19: 21–37.Google Scholar
Dancy, J. (2006a). “Nonnaturalism.” In Copp, D., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 122–145.Google Scholar
Dancy, J. (2004). “Enticing Reasons.” In Wallace, R. J., Pettit, P., Scheffler, S., and Smith, M., eds., Reason and Value: Themes from the Moral Philosophy of Joseph Raz. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 91–118.Google Scholar
Dancy, J. (2006b). “What Do Reasons Do?” In Horgan, T. and Timmons, M., eds., Metaethics after Moore. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 39–59.Google Scholar
Darwall, S. (2006a). The Second-Person Standpoint: Morality, Respect, and Accountability. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Darwall, S. (2017). “What Are Moral Reasons?” Amherst Lecture in Philosophy 12: 1–24, <www.amherstlecture.org/darwall2017/>.Google Scholar
Darwall, S. (2006b). “Morality and Practical Reason: A Kantian Approach.” In Copp, D., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 282–320.Google Scholar
Dorsey, D. (2015). “How Not to Argue against Consequentialism.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 90: 20–48.Google Scholar
Dorsey, D. (Forthcoming). “Respecting the Game: Blame and Practice Failure.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.Google Scholar
Dreier, J. (2004). “Why Ethical Satisficing Makes Sense and Rational Satisficing Doesn’t.” In Byron, M., ed., Satisficing and Maximizing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 131–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finlay, S., and Schroeder, M. (2017). “Reasons for Action: Internal vs. External.” In Zalta, E. N., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 Edition). URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/reasons-internal-external/>..>Google Scholar
Foot, P. (1972). “Morality As a System of Hypothetical Imperatives.” Philosophical Review 81: 305–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forcehimes, A. T., and Semrau, L. (2018). “Are There Distinctively Moral Reasons?” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 21: 699–717.Google Scholar
Gert, J. (2003). “Requiring and Justifying: Two Dimensions of Normative Strength.” Erkenntnis 59: 5–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gert, J. (2008). “Michael Smith and the Rationality of Immoral Action.” Journal of Ethics 12: 1–23.Google Scholar
Gert, J. (2018). “Underdetermination by Reasons.” In Star, D., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Reasons and Normativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 443–460.Google Scholar
Gibbard, A. (1990). Wise Choices, Apt Feelings: A Theory of Normative Judgment. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hume, D. (1975). [1739]. A Treatise of Human Nature, Selby-Bigge, L. A. (ed.), 2nd ed. revised by P. H. Nidditch, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Kagan, S. (1991). “Replies to My Critics.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 51: 919–928.Google Scholar
MacAskill, W. (2013). “To Save the World, Don’t Get a Job at a Charity; Go Work on Wall Street.” Quartz, <https://qz.com/57254/to-save-the-world-dont-get-a-job-at-a-charity-go-work-on-wall-street/>..>Google Scholar
McNamara, P. (2011). “Supererogation, Inside and Out: Toward an Adequate Scheme for Common Sense Morality.” In Timmons, M., ed., Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics, Volume I. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 202–235.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. (1991). [1861]. Utilitarianism. In Robson, J. M., ed., Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Vol. 10. London: Routledge, pp. 203–259.Google Scholar
Nair, S. (2016). “Conflicting Reasons, Unconflicting ‘Oughts.’” Philosophical Studies 173: 629–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parfit, D. (1997). “Reasons and Motivation.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, suppl. 71: 99–130.Google Scholar
Portmore, D. W. (2011). Commonsense Consequentialism: Wherein Morality Meets Rationality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Portmore, D. W. (2019b).” Control, Attitudes, and Accountability.” Oxford Studies in Agency and Responsibility 6: 7–32.Google Scholar
Portmore, D. W. (2019a). Opting for the Best: Oughts and Options. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Portmore, D. W. (Forthcoming). “A Comprehensive Account of Blame: Self-Blame, Non-moral Blame, and Blame for the Non-voluntary.” In Carlsson, A., ed., Self-Blame and Moral Responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Raz, J. (2000). Engaging Reason: On the Theory of Value and Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sagdahl, M. S. (2014). “The Argument from Nominal–Notable Comparisons, ‘Ought All Things Considered,’and Normative Pluralism.” Journal of Ethics 18: 405–425.Google Scholar
Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (1992). “An Argument for Consequentialism.” Philosophical Perspectives 6: 399–421.Google Scholar
Slote, M. (1991). “Shelly Kagan’s The Limits of Morality.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 51: 915–917.Google Scholar
Sobel, D. (2007a). “Subjectivism and Blame.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 33 (Supplement): 149–170.Google Scholar
Sobel, D. (2007b). “The Impotence of the Demandingness Objection.” Philosophers’ Imprint 7: 1–17.Google Scholar
Sobel, D. (2016). From Valuing to Value: A Defense of Subjectivism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stroud, S. (1998). “Moral Overridingness and Moral Theory.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 79: 170–189.Google Scholar
Tiffany, E. (2007). “Deflationary Normative Pluralism.”.Canadian Journal of Philosophy 37: 231–262.Google Scholar
Tucker, C. (Manuscript). “Too Far Beyond the Call of Duty: Moral Rationalism and Weighing Reasons.”Google Scholar
Wedgwood, R. (2013). “The Weight of Moral Reasons.” In Timmons, M., ed., Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics, Volume III. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 35–58.Google Scholar
Worsnip, A. (Forthcoming). “Immorality and Irrationality.” Philosophical Perspectives.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, M. J. (1993). “Supererogation and Doing the Best One Can.” American Philosophical Quarterly 30: 373–380.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this element is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.
- 21
- Cited by