Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 3
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Jeppsson, Sofia 2016. Reasons, Determinism and the Ability to Do otherwise. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice,

    Orsi, Francesco 2013. What’s wrong with Moorean buck-passing?. Philosophical Studies, Vol. 164, Issue. 3, p. 727.

    Darwall, Stephen 2010. “BUT IT WOULD BE WRONG”. Social Philosophy and Policy, Vol. 27, Issue. 02, p. 135.


The Good and the Right

  • DOI:
  • Published online: 01 September 2007

T. M. Scanlon has revived a venerable tradition according to which something's being good consists in its being such that there is a reason to respond positively towards it. He has presented novel arguments for this thesis. In this article, I first develop some refinements of the thesis with a view to focusing on intrinsic value in particular, then discuss the relation between the thesis and consequentialism, then critically examine Scanlon's arguments for the thesis, and finally turn to the question whether we should reject the thesis on the grounds that, when there is a reason to respond positively towards something, this is so because the thing in question is good. Two appendices follow. In the first, I discuss whether it is good to do right. In the second, I discuss whether an act's being wrong provides a reason not to do it.

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

C. M. Korsgaard , ‘Two Distinctions in Goodness’, Philosophical Review 92 (1983)

M. J. Zimmerman , The Concept of Moral Obligation (Cambridge, 1996)

R. Crisp , ‘Value, Reasons and the Structure of Justification: How to Avoid Passing the Buck’, Analysis 65 (2005), p. 83

T. M. Scanlon , ‘Reasons, Responsibility, and Reliance: Replies to Wallace, Dworkin, and Deigh’, Ethics 112 (2002), p. 513

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

  • ISSN: 0953-8208
  • EISSN: 1741-6183
  • URL: /core/journals/utilitas
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *