David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 61 (1):65--90 (2000)
Philosophers often call emotions appropriate or inappropriate. What is meant by such talk? In one sense, explicated in this paper, to call an emotion appropriate is to say that the emotion is fitting: it accurately presents its object as having certain evaluative features. For instance, envy might be thought appropriate when one’s rival has something good which one lacks. But someone might grant that a circumstance has these features, yet deny that envy is appropriate, on the grounds that it is wrong to be envious. These two senses of ‘appropriate’ have much less in common than philosophers have supposed. Indeed, the distinction between propriety and correctness is crucial to understanding the distinctive role of the emotions in ethics. We argue here that an emotion can be fitting despite being wrong to feel, and that various philosophical arguments are guilty of a systematic error which we term the moralistic fallacy.
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Sara Protasi (2014). Loving People for Who They Are (Even When They Don't Love You Back). European Journal of Philosophy 21 (4):n/a-n/a.
Luvell Anderson & Ernie Lepore (2013). Slurring Words. Noûs 47 (1):25-48.
Alexandra Plakias (2013). The Good and the Gross. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (2):261-278.
Mark Schroeder (2012). Stakes, Withholding, and Pragmatic Encroachment on Knowledge. Philosophical Studies 160 (2):265 - 285.
Michelle Montague (2009). The Logic, Intentionality, and Phenomenology of Emotion. Philosophical Studies 145 (2):171-192.
Similar books and articles
Justin D'Arms & Daniel Jacobson (2000). The Moralistic Fallacy: On the "Appropriateness" of Emotions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 61 (1):65-90.
Daniel Jacobson (2000). The Moralistic Fallacy. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 61 (1):65-90.
Mikko Salmela (2006). True Emotions. Philosophical Quarterly 56 (224):382-405.
Andrew Jordan & Stephanie Patridge (2012). Against the Moralistic Fallacy: A Modest Defense of a Modest Sentimentalism About Humor. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (1):83-94.
Daniel Farell (2004). Rationality and the Emotions. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 4 (11):241-251.
Jing Zhu & Paul Thagard (2002). Emotion and Action. Philosophical Psychology 15 (1):19 – 36.
Reid D. Blackman (2013). Intentionality and Compound Accounts of the Emotions. Southern Journal of Philosophy 51 (1):67-90.
Demian Whiting (2011). The Feeling Theory of Emotion and the Object-Directed Emotions. European Journal of Philosophy 19 (2):281-303.
Nick Zangwill (2007). Music, Metaphor, and Emotion. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 65 (4):391–400.
Nick Zangwill (2007). Music, Emotion and Metaphor. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 65 (4):391-400.
Peter Goldie (2004). Emotion, Feeling, and Knowledge of the World. In Robert C. Solomon (ed.), Thinking About Feeling: Contemporary Philosophers on Emotions. Oxford University Press
Edmund T. Rolls (2007). Emotion Explained. OUP Oxford.
P. M. S. Hacker (2009). The Conceptual Framework for the Investigation of Emotions. In Ylva Gustafsson, Camilla Kronqvist & Michael McEachrane (eds.), Emotions and Understanding: Wittgensteinian Perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan
Irwin Goldstein (2002). Are Emotions Feelings? A Further Look at Hedonic Theories of Emotions. Consciousness and Emotion 3 (1):21-33.
Added to index2011-12-04
Total downloads29 ( #129,900 of 1,789,828 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #166,719 of 1,789,828 )
How can I increase my downloads?