Humean agent-neutral reasons?

Philosophical Explorations 12 (1):55 – 67 (2009)
In his recent book Slaves of the Passions , Mark Schroeder defends a Humean account of practical reasons ( hypotheticalism ). He argues that it is compatible with 'genuinely agent-neutral reasons'. These are reasons that any agent whatsoever has. According to Schroeder, they may well include moral reasons. Furthermore, he proposes a novel account of a reason's weight, which is supposed to vindicate the claim that agent-neutral reasons ( if they exist), would be weighty irrespective of anyone's desires. If the argument is successful, it could help avoid an error-theory of moral language. I argue that it isn't, and that we should reject a Humean approach to reasons
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/13869790802635614
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive Daan Evers, Humean agent-neutral reasons?
External links
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
Derek Parfit (2011). On What Matters. Oxford University Press.
Stephen Finlay (2008). The Error in the Error Theory. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 86 (3):347-369.

View all 7 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Daan Evers (2013). In Defence of Proportionalism. European Journal of Philosophy 21 (2):313-320.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

184 ( #10,406 of 1,726,249 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

15 ( #48,707 of 1,726,249 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.