Element contents
Series: Elements in Ethics
Ethical Constructivism
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 January 2022
Summary
Ethical constructivism holds that truths about the relation between rationality, morality, and agency are best understood as constructed by correct reasoning, rather than discovered or invented. Unlike other metaphors used in metaethics, construction brings to light the generative and dynamic dimension of practical reason. On the resultant picture, practical reasoning is not only productive but also self-transforming, and socially empowering. The main task of this volume is to illustrate how constructivism has substantially modified and expanded the agenda of metaethics by refocusing on rational agency and its constitutive principles. In particular, this volume identifies, compares and discusses the prospects and failures of the main strands of constructivism regarding the powers of reason in responding to the challenges of contingency. While Kantian, Humean, Aristotelian, and Hegelian theories sharply differ in their constructivist strategies, they provide compelling accounts of the rational articulation required for an inclusive and unified ethical community.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Series: Elements in EthicsOnline ISBN: 9781108588188Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 03 February 2022
References
Allison, Henry E. (2006). Kant’s Transcendental Idealism. In Bird, Graham., ed., Companion to Kant. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 111–24.Google Scholar
Ameriks, Karl. (2003). On Two Non-Realist Interpretations of Kant’s Ethics. In Karl Ameriks, Interpreting Kant’s Critiques. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 263–82.Google Scholar
Archard, David, Deveaux, Monique, Manson, Neil, and Daniel Weinstock, eds. (2013). Reading Onora O’Neill. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Aristotle (2000). Nicomachean Ethics, Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Abbreviated NE]Google Scholar
Arruda, Caroline T. (2016). What We Can Intend: Recognition and Collective Intentionality. Southern Journal of Philosophy, 54(1): 5–26.Google Scholar
Arruda, Caroline T. (2017a). The Varieties of Moral Improvement, Or Why Metaethical Constructivism Must Explain Moral Progress. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 20(1): 17–38.Google Scholar
Arruda, Caroline T. (2017b). Why Care About Being an Agent. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 95(3): 488–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arruda, Caroline T. (2018). Why Moral Status Matters for Metaethics. Journal of the American Philosophical Association, 4 (4): 471–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagnoli, Carla. (2002). Moral Constructivism: A Phenomenological Argument. Topoi, 21 : 125–38.Google Scholar
Bagnoli, Carla. (2013). Constructivism About Practical Knowledge. In Bagnoli 2013, pp. 153–82.Google Scholar
Bagnoli, Carla. (2017a). Constructivism in Metaethics. In Edward N. Zalta, ed., Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/constructivism-metaethics/.Google Scholar
Bagnoli, Carla. (2017b). Constructivism and the Moral Problem. Philosophia, 44(4): 1229–46.Google Scholar
Bagnoli, Carla. (2017c). Kant in Metaethics: The Paradox of Autonomy, Solved by Publicity. In Altman, Matthew, ed., The Palgrave Kant Handbook/Palgrave Handbooks in German Idealism. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 355–77.Google Scholar
Bagnoli, Carla. (2018). Defeaters and Practical Knowledge. Synthese, 195(7): 2855–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagnoli, Carla. (2019b). Authority as a Contingency Plan. Philosophical Explorations, 22(2): 130–45.Google Scholar
Bagnoli, Carla. (2021). The Practical Significance of the Categorical Imperative. Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics, 11 : 178–99.Google Scholar
Bagnoli, Carla, ed. (2013). Constructivism in Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baiasu, Sorin. (2016). Constitutivism and Transcendental Practical Philosophy: How to Pull the Baiasu Sorin. (2020). Staying Philosophically on the Surface: Constitutivist and Naturalist Quests for Normativity. In Reason, Normativity and Law: New Essays in Kantian Philosophy. University of Wales PressGoogle Scholar
Barry, Melissa. (2013). Constructivist Practical Reasoning and Objectivity. In Archard et al. 2013, pp. 17–36.Google Scholar
Besch, Thomas M. (2008). Constructing Practical Reason: O’Neill On the Grounds of Kantian Constructivism. Journal of Value Inquiry, 42(1): 55–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besch, Thomas M. (2011). Kantian Constructivism, the Issue of Scope, And Perfectionism: O’Neill On Ethical Standing. European Journal of Philosophy, 19(1): 1–20.Google Scholar
Bird-Pollan, Stephan (2011). Some Normative Implications of Korsgaard’s Theory of the Intersubjectivity of Reason. Metaphilosophy, 42(4): 376–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackburn, Simon. (1998). Ruling Passions: A Theory of Practical Reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bratman, Michael E. (1998). The Sources of Normativity. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 58(3): 699–709.Google Scholar
Bratman, Michael E. (2012). Constructivism, Agency, and the Problem of Alignment. In Lenman and Shemmer 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, Geoffrey, Eriksson, Lina, Goodin, Robert E. and Southwood, Nicholas. (2013). Explaining Norms. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brink, David O. (1989). Moral Realism and the Foundations of Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brink, David O. (1992). A Puzzle about the Rational Authority of Morality. Philosophical Perspectives 6:1-26.Google Scholar
Broome, John. (2005). Does Rationality Give Us Reasons? Philosophical Issues, 15 : 321–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cholbi, Michael J. (1999). Egoism and the Publicity of Reason: A Reply to Korsgaard. Social Theory and Practice, 25(3): 491–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Gerald A. (1996). Reason, Humanity, and the Moral Law. In Cohen, Gerald A., Geuss, Raymond, Nagel, Thomas, and Williams, Bernard, eds., The Sources of Normativity. Cambridge University Press, pp. 167–88.Google Scholar
Cokelet, Bradford. (2008). Ideal Agency and the Possibility of Error. Ethics, 118(2): 315–23.Google Scholar
Copp, David. (1995). Morality, Normativity, and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Copp, David. (2005). “A Skeptical Challenge to Moral Non-Naturalism and a Defense of Constructivist Naturalism”, Philosophical Studies, 126 (2): 269–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copp, David. (2008). Darwinian Skepticism About Moral Realism. Philosophical Issues, 18(1): 186–206.Google Scholar
Copp, David (2015). Rationality and Moral Authority. Oxford Studies in Metaethics 10: 134-159Google Scholar
Cullity, Garrett and Gaut, Berys eds., 1997, Ethics and Practical Reason, Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwall, Stephen. (2006). The Second Person Standpoint: Morality, Respect, and Accountability. Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
Darwall, Stephen, Gibbard, Allan, and Railton, Peter. (1992). Toward fin de siecle Ethics: Some Trends. The Philosophical Review, 101 : 115–89. Reprinted in Stephen Darwall, Allan Gibbard, and Peter Railton, eds. (1997). Moral Discourse and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–47.Google Scholar
Driver, Julia. (2017). Contingency and Constructivism. In Kirchin, Simon, ed., Reading Parfit. London: Routledge, pp. 172–88.Google Scholar
Engstrom, Stephen. (2009). The Form of Practical Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Engstrom, Stephen. (2013). Constructivism and Practical Knowledge. In Bagnoli 2013, pp. 133–52.Google Scholar
Enoch, David. (2006). Agency, Shmagency: Why Normativity Won’t Come from What Is Constitutive of Agency. Philosophical Review, 115 : 169–98.Google Scholar
Enoch, David. (2009). Can There Be a Global, Interesting, Coherent Constructivism About Practical Reason? Philosophical Explorations, 12 : 319–39.Google Scholar
Enoch, David. (2011). Shmagency revisited. In Michael Brady (ed.), New Waves in Metaethics. Palgrave-MacmillanGoogle Scholar
Ferrero, Luca. (2009). Constitutivism and the Inescapability of Agency. Oxford Studies in Metaethics, 4 : 303–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrero, Luca. (2019). The Simple Constitutivist Move. Philosophical Explorations, 22 (2): 146–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick, William J. (2005). The Practical Turn in Ethical Theory: Korsgaard’s Constructivism, Realism and the Nature of Normativity. Ethics, 115 : 651–91.Google Scholar
FitzPatrick, William J. (2013). How Not to Be an Ethical Constructivist: A Critique of Korsgaard’s Neo-Kantian Constitutivism. In Bagnoli 2013, pp. 41–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fix, Jeremy David. (2020). The Error Condition. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 50(1): 34–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fix, Jeremy David. (2021). Two Sorts of Constitutivism. Analytic Philosophy, 62(1): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foot, Philippa. (1972). Morality as a system of hypothetical imperatives. Philosophical Review, 81 (3):305–316.Google Scholar
Frankfurt, Harry G. (2006). Taking Ourselves Seriously and Getting It Right. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Galvin, Richard. (2011). Rounding Up the Usual Suspects: Varieties of Kantian Constructivism in Ethics. The Philosophical Quarterly, 61(242): 16–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaut, Berys. (1997). The Structure of Practical Reason. In Cullity, Garrett and Gaut, Berys, eds., Ethics and Practical Reason. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 161–88.Google Scholar
Gibbard, Allan. (1990). Wise Choices, Apt Feelings: A Theory of Normative Judgement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gledhill, James and Stein, Sebastian, eds. (2020). Hegel and Contemporary Practical Philosophy: Beyond Kantian Constructivism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wolfram, Gobsch. (2019). Autonomy and Radical Evil: A Kantian Challenge to Constitutivism. Philosophical Explorations, 22 (2): 194–207.Google Scholar
Gowans, Christopher W. (2002). Practical Identities and Autonomy: Korsgaard’s Reformation of Kant’s Moral Philosophy. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 64 (3): 546–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, Paul. (2013). Constructivism and Self-Constitution. In Timmons, Mark and Baiasu, Sorin, eds., Kant on Practical Justification: Interpretive Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 176–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harman, Gilbert. (1997). Practical Reasoning. In Mele, Alfred, ed., The Philosophy of Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 149–77.Google Scholar
Hegel, F. G. (1991). Elements of the Philosophy of Right. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Herman, Barbara. (2000). Editor’s Forward, in John Rawls, Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy. Harvard University Press, pp. x-xix.Google Scholar
Hill, Thomas Jr. E. (1994). Respect for Humanity. Tanner Lectures on Human Values. CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Hill, Thomas Jr. E. (2001). Hypothetical Consent in Kantian Constructivism. Social Philosophy and Policy, 18 : 300–29. Reprinted in Hill, Thomas. Jr. E. (2002). Human Welfare and Moral Worth: Kantian Perspectives. Oxford University Press, pp. 61–95.Google Scholar
Hill, Thomas Jr. E. (2008). Moral Construction as a Task: Sources and Limits. Social Philosophy and Policy, 25 (1): 214–36. Reprinted in Ellen Frankel Paul, Fred D. Miller, and Paul Jeffrey, eds. (2008). Objectivity, Subjectivism, and Relativism in Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, David. (1985). Of the Standard of Taste. In Miller, Eugene F., ed., Essays: Moral, Political, and Literary. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, pp. 226–49.Google Scholar
Hussain, Nadeem and Shah, Nishi. (2006). Misunderstanding Metaethics: Korsgaard’s Rejection of Realism. Oxford Studies in Metaethics, 1 : 265–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, Aaron. (2007). Constructivism About Practical Reasons. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 74(2): 302–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, Aaron. (2012). Constructing Protagoreon Objectivity. In Lenman and Shemmer 2012, pp. 60–80.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. (1781). Critique of Pure Reason, Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten, Kants gesammelte Schriften, Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin, Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood (1998). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [C1].Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. (1785). Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten, Kants gesammelte Schriften, Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin, Volume 4, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. In Wood, Allen W., ed. (1983). Practical Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [Abbreviated G].Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. (1786). What Does It Mean to Orient Oneself in Thinking? In Allen W. Wood and G. di Giovanni, trans. (1996). Religion and Rational Theology. Cambridge University Press, 8: 133–46 [Abbreviated WOT].Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. (1788). Critique of Practical Reason, Kants gesammelte Schriften, Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin, 1907, Volume 5. In Wood, Allen, ed. (1983). Practical Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [Abbreviated C2].Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. (1797). Metaphysics of Morals, Kants gesammelte Schriften, Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin, 1907, Volume 6. In Mary J. Gregorm ed. (1996). Practical Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [Abbreviated MM].Google Scholar
Katsafanas, Paul. (2018). Constitutivism About Practical Reasons. In Star, Daniel, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Reasons and Normativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 367–94.Google Scholar
Kleingeld, Pauline. (1999). Kant, History, and the Idea of Moral Development. History of Philosophy Quarterly, 16(1): 59–80.Google Scholar
Kleingeld, Pauline. (2010). Moral Consciousness and the “Fact of Reason.” In Reath, Andrews and Timmermann, Jens, eds., Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason: A Critical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine M. (1989). Personal Identity and the Unity of Agency: A Kantian Response to Parfit. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 18(2): 103–31.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine M. (1996a). Sources of Normativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine M. (1996b). Creating the Kingdom of Ends. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine M. (1997). The Normativity of Instrumental Reason. In Cullity, G. and Gaut, B. eds., Ethics and Practical Reason. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Reprinted in Korsgaard 2008, pp. 27–68.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine M. (1998). Motivation, Metaphysics, and the Value of Self. Ethics, 109 : 49–66.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine M. (2003). Realism and Constructivism in Twentieth-Century Moral Philosophy. The Journal of Philosophical Research, APA Centennial Supplement, Philosophy in America at the End of the Century, 2003: 99–122.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine M. (2008). The Constitution of Agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine M. (2008). The General Point of View: Love and Moral Approval in Hume’s Ethics. In Korsgaard 2009, pp.263–301.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine M. (2009). Self-Constitution: Action, Identity and Integrity. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine M. (2011). Natural Goodness, Rightness, and the Intersubjectivity of Reason: Reply to Arroyo, Cummiskey, Moland, and Bird-Pollan. Metaphilosophy, 42 (4): 381–94.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine M. (2019). Constitutivism and the Virtues. Philosophical Explorations, 22 (2): 98–116.Google Scholar
Larry., Krasnoff (1999). How Kantian Is Constructivism? Kant-Studien, 90(90): 385–409.Google Scholar
Laitinen, Arto. (2020). Finding by Making: The Mediating Role of Social Constructions, Commitments, and Resonance in Hegelian Normative Realism. In Gledhill and Stein 2020, chapter 8.Google Scholar
Lavin, Douglas. (2004). Practical Reason and the Possibility of Error. Ethics, 114 : 424–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeBar, Mark. (2005). Eudaimonist Autonomy. American Philosophical Quarterly, 42 (3): 171–83.Google Scholar
Lebar, Mark. (2008). Aristotelian Constructivism. Social Philosophy and Policy, 25(1): 182–213.Google Scholar
Leffler, Olof. (2019). New Shmagency Worries. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy, 15(2): 121–45.Google Scholar
Lenman, James. (1998). Review of Korsgaard‘s Creating the Kingdom of Ends. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 1 (4):487-8.Google Scholar
Lenman, James. (2010). “Humean Constructivism in Moral Theory”, Oxford Studies in Metaethics, 5: 175–193.Google Scholar
Lenman, James. (2012). “Expressivism and Contructivism”. In Lenman & Shemmer 2012: 213–25.Google Scholar
Lenman, James and Shemmer, Yonatan. (2012). Constructivism in Practical Philosophy. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McDowell, John. (1981). Non-Cognitivism and Rule-Following. In Holtzman, Steven and Leich, Christopher, eds., Wittgenstein: To Follow a Rule. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
McDowell, John. (1995). Two Sorts of Naturalism. In Rosalind Hursthouse, Gawin Lawrence and Warren Quinn, eds., Virtues and Reasons. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell-Yellin, Benjamin. (2015). Aligning with the Good. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy, 9(2): 1–8.Google Scholar
Moland, Lydia. (2011). Agency and Practical Identity: A Hegelian Response to Korsgaard. Metaphilosophy, 42(4): 368–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, Thomas. (1996). Universality and the reflective self. In C. Korsgaard, The Sources of Normativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 200-209.Google Scholar
Ng, Karen. (2009). Hegel’s Logic of Actuality. The Review of Metaphysics, 63(1): 139–72.Google Scholar
O’Neill, Onora. (1989). Constructions of Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
O’Neill, Onora. (1996). Toward Justice and Virtue: A Constructivist Account of Practical Reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Neill, Onora. (1999). “Kantian Constructivisms”, in Rationalität, Realismus, Revision. Vorträge des 3. internationalen Kongresses der Gesellschaft für Analytische Philosophie vom 15. bis zum 18. September 1997 in München, Julian Nida-Rümelin, ed., Berlin, New York: De Gruyter, pp. 3–16. doi:10.1515/9783110805703.3Google Scholar
O’Neill, Onora. (2003). Constructivism in Rawls and Kant. In Freeman, Samuel., ed., The Cambridge Companion to Rawls. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 347–67.Google Scholar
O’Neill, Onora. (2015). Constructing Authorities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
O’Shea, James. (2006). Conceptual Connections: Kant and the Twentieth-Century Analytic Tradition. In Bird, Graham., ed., Companion to Kant. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 513–26.Google Scholar
Ostritsch, Sebastian. (2020). Hegel’s Metaethical Non-Constructivism. In Gledhill and Stein 2020, chapter 4.Google Scholar
Pippin, Robert B. (2008). Hegel’s Practical Philosophy – Rational Agency as Ethical Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pollok, Konstantin. (2017). Kant’s Farewell to Perfectionism. In Pollok, Kant’s Theory of Normativity: Exploring the Space of Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 27–57.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary. (1981). Realism, Truth and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary. (1990). Realism with Human Face. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. (1951). Outline of a Decision Procedure for Ethics. Philosophical Review, 60(2): 177–97. Reprinted in Samuel. Freeman, ed. (1999). Collected Papers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–19.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. (1980). Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory. Journal of Philosophy, 77 : 515–72. Reprinted in Samuel. Freeman, ed. (1999). Collected Papers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 303–58.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. (1989). Themes in Kant’s Moral, Philosophy. Reprinted in Freeman, Samuel., ed. (1999). Collected Papers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 497–528.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. (2000). Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy. Edited by Barbara Herman, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Reath, Andrews. (2006). Agency and Autonomy in Kant’s Moral Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Redding, Paul. (2020). Hegel’s “Actualist” Idealism and the Modality of Practical Reason. In Gledhill and Stein 2020, chapter 1.Google Scholar
Richardson, Henry. (2013). Revising Moral Norms: Pragmatism and the Problem of Perspicuous Description. In Bagnoli 2013, pp. 221–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, Henry. (2018). Articulating the Moral Community. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ridge, Michael. (2012). Kantian constructivism: something old, something new. In James Lenman & Yonatan Shemmer eds., Constructivism in Practical Philosophy. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rosati, Connie S. (2003). Agency and the open question argument. Ethics 113 (3):490-527.Google Scholar
Rosati, Connie S. (2016). Agents and “Shmagents”: An Essay on Agency and Normativity. Oxford Studies in Metaethics 11: 182–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ronzoni, Miriam. (2010). Constructivism and Practical Reason: On Intersubjectivity, Abstraction, and Judgement. The Journal of Moral Philosophy, 4 : 74–104.Google Scholar
Saemi, Amir. (2016). The Form of Practical Knowledge and Implicit Cognition: A Critique of Kantian Constitutivism. Social Theory and Practice, 42(4): 733–47.Google Scholar
Scanlon, Thomas M. (2002). Rawls on Justification. In Samuel. Freeman, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Rawls. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 139–67.Google Scholar
Scanlon, Thomas M. (2003). Metaphysics and Morals. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 77(2): 7–22.Google Scholar
Scanlon, Thomas M. (2007). Structural Irrationality. In Geoffrey Brennan, Robert E. Goodin, Frank Jackson, and Smith, Michael, eds., Common Minds: Themes from the Philosophy of Philip Pettit. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 84–103.Google Scholar
Scanlon, Thomas M. (2012). “The Appeal and Limits of Constructivism”, in Lenman and Shemmer 2012a: 226–42.Google Scholar
Scanlon, Thomas M. (2014). Being Realistic About Reasons. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schafer, Karl. (forthcoming). Practical Cognition and Knowledge of Things-in-Themselves. In Tiffany, Evan and Dai Heide, eds., Kantian Freedom. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schafer, Karl. (2014). Constructivism and Three Forms of Perspective-Dependence in Metaethics. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 89(1): 68–101.Google Scholar
Schafer, Karl. (2015a). Realism and Constructivism in Kantian Metaethics 1: Realism and Constructivism in a Kantian Context. Philosophy Compass, 10 : 690–701.Google Scholar
Schafer, Karl. (2015b). Realism and Constructivism in Kantian Metaethics 2: The Kantian Conception of Rationality and Rationalist Constructivism. Philosophy Compass, 10: 702–13.Google Scholar
Schafer, Karl. (2018). A Kantian Virtue Epistemology: Rational Capacities and Transcendental Arguments. Synthese, 198(Suppl 13): 3113–36.Google Scholar
Schafer, Karl. (2019a). Kant: Constitutivism as Capacities-First Philosophy. Philosophical Explorations, 22 (2): 177–93.Google Scholar
Schafer, Karl. (2019b). The Artificial Virtues of Thought: Hume on the Normativity of Cognition. Philosopher’s Imprint, 19/7.Google Scholar
Skorupski, John. (1998). Rescuing moral obligation. European Journal of Philosophy 6 (3): 335–355.Google Scholar
Smith, Michael. (1999). Search for the Source. The Philosophical Quarterly, 49 : 384–94.Google Scholar
Smith, Michael. (2013). A Constitutivist Theory of Reasons: Its Promise and Parts. Law, Ethics and Philosophy, 1 : 9–30.Google Scholar
Smith, Michael. (2015). The Magic of Constitutivism. American Philosophical Quarterly, 52 (2): 187–200.Google Scholar
Southwood, Nicholas. (2008). Vindicating the Normativity of Rationality. Ethics, 119 : 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Southwood, Nicholas. (2018). Constructivism About Reason. In Star, Daniel, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Reasons and Normativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 342–66.Google Scholar
Stein, Sebastian. (2020). Choosing to Do the Right Thing: Aristotle, Kant, and Hegel on Practical Normativity and the Realism-Constructivism Debate. In Gledhill and Stein 2020, chapter 2.Google Scholar
Stern, Robert. (2000). Transcendental Arguments: Answering the Question of Justification. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 75-94.Google Scholar
Stern, Robert. (2011). The Value of Humanity: Reflections on Korsgaard’s Transcendental Argument. In Smith, J. and Sullivan, P., eds., Transcendental Philosophy and Naturalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 74–95.Google Scholar
Stern, Robert. (2012). Understanding Moral Obligation: Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stern, Robert. (2013). Moral Skepticism, Constructivism and the Value of Humanity. In Bagnoli 2013, pp. 22–40.Google Scholar
Stevenson, Charles Leslie. (1937). The emotive meaning of ethical terms. Mind 46 (181):14–31.Google Scholar
Street, Sharon. (2006). A Darwinian Dilemma for Realist Theories of Value. Philosophical Studies, 127 (1): 109−66.Google Scholar
Street, Sharon. (2008a). Constructivism About Reasons. Oxford Studies in Metaethics, 3 : 207–45.Google Scholar
Street, Sharon. (2008b). Reply to Copp: Naturalism, Normativity, and the Varieties of Realism Worth Worrying About. Philosophical Issues, 18 (1): 207–28.Google Scholar
Street, Sharon. (2009). In Defense of Future Tuesday’ Indifference: Ideally Coherent Eccentrics and the Contingency of What Matters. Philosophical Issues, 19(1): 273–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Street, Sharon. (2010). What is Constructivism in Ethics and Metaethics? Philosophy Compass, 5 : 363–84.Google Scholar
Street, Sharon. (2011). Mind-Independence without the Mystery: Why Quasi-Realists Can’t Have It Both Ways. In Shafer-Landau, Russ, ed., Oxford Studies in Metaethics, Volume 6. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–32.Google Scholar
Street, Sharon. (2012). “Coming to Terms with Contingency: Humean Constructivism about Practical Reason”, Lenman and Shemmer 2012, pp. 40–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Jacqueline. (2015). Reflecting Subjects: Passion, Sympathy, and Society in Hume‘s Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tenenbaum, Sergio. (2019). Formalism and Constitutivism in Kantian Practical Philosophy. Philosophical Explorations, 22 (2): 163–76.Google Scholar
Thompson, Michael J. (2004). What is it to Wrong Someone? A Puzzle About Justice. In Jay Wallace, R., Pettit, Philip, Scheffler, Samuel, and Smith, Michael, eds., Reason and Value: Themes from the Moral Philosophy of Joseph Raz. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 333–84.Google Scholar
Thompson, Michael J (2008). Life and Action: Elementary Structures of Practice and Practical Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Michael J. (2020). Critical Agency in Hegelian Ethics: Social Metaphysics versus Moral Constructivism. In Gledhill and Stein 2020, chapter 10.Google Scholar
Tiffany, Evan. (2006). How Kantian Must Kantian Constructivists Be? Inquiry, 49 : 524–46.Google Scholar
Timmons, Mark ed. (2015). Reason, Value, and Respect: Kantian Themes from the Philosophy of Thomas E. Hill, Jr. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Timmons, Mark. (2017). Significance and System: Essays on Kant’s Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tropman, Elizabeth (2014). Evolutionary debunking arguments: moral realism, constructivism, and explaining moral knowledge. Philosophical Explorations 17 (2):126-140.Google Scholar
Vavova, Katia. (2014). Debunking Evolutionary Debunking. In Shafer-Landau, Russ, ed., Oxford Studies in Metaethics, 9: 76–101.Google Scholar
Velleman, J. David. (2004). Review: Replies to Discussion on "The Possibility of Practical Reason". Philosophical Studies 121 (3):277–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walden, Kenneth. (2012). Laws of Nature, Laws of Freedom, and the Social Construction of Normativity. In Russ Shafer-Landau, ed., Oxford Studies in Metaethics, 7: 37–79.Google Scholar
Walden, Kenneth. (2018). Practical Reason Not as Such. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy, 2 : 127–52.Google Scholar
Watkins, Eric and Fitzpatrick, William. (2002). O’Neill and Korsgaard on the Construction of Normativity. Journal of Value Inquiry, 36 : 349–67.Google Scholar
Way, Jonathan. (2010). The Normativity of Rationality. Philosophy Compass, 5 : 1057–68.Google Scholar
Westphal, Kenneth R. (2016). How Hume and Kant Reconstruct Natural Law: Justifying Strict Objectivity without Debating Moral Realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Westphal, Kenneth R. (2017). Hegel’s Natural Law Constructivism: Progress in Principle and in Practice. In Brooks, T. and Stein, S., eds., Hegel’s Political Philosophy: On the Normative Significance of Method and System. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 253–79.Google Scholar
Williams, Bernard A.O. (1985). Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Bernard A.O. (1993). Shame and Necessity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Bernard A.O. (1996). History, Morality, and the Test of Reflection. In Korsgaard, Christine M. and O’Neill, Onora, eds., The Sources of Normativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 210–18.Google Scholar
Wong, David. (2008). Constructing Normative Objectivity in Ethics. Social Philosophy and Policy, 25(1): 237–66.Google Scholar
Wood, Allen W. (1995). Attacking Morality: A Metaethical Project. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 25 : 221–49.Google Scholar
Wood, Allen W. (2017). How a Kantian Decides What to Do. In Altman, Matthew, ed., The Palgrave Kant Handbook/Palgrave Handbooks in German Idealism. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 263–84.Google Scholar
Wretzel, Joshua I. (2020). Constraint and the Ethical Agent: Hegel Between Constructivism and Realism. In Gledhill and Stein 2020, chapter 3.Google Scholar
Yeomans, Christopher. (2012). Freedom and Reflection: Hegel and the Logic of Agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yeomans, Christopher. (2020). Historical Constructivism. In Gledhill and Stein 2020, chapter 9.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.
- 24
- Cited by