Oxford Studies in Metaethics 3:47-73 (2008)
|Abstract||The purpose of this paper is to present a new argument against so-called fitting attitude analyses of intrinsic value, according to which, roughly, for something to be intrinsically good is for there to be reasons to want it for its own sake. The argument is indirect. First, I submit that advocates of a fitting-attitude analysis of value should, for the sake of theoretical unity, also endorse a fitting-attitude analysis of a closely related but distinct concept: the concept of intrinsic value for a person, i.e., the concept of welfare. Then I argue directly against fitting-attitude analyses of welfare. This argument, which is the focus of the paper, is based on the idea that whereas whether an event is good or bad for a person doesn’t change over time, the attitudes there is reason to have towards such an event can change over time. Therefore, one cannot explain the former in terms of the latter, as fitting-attitude analyses of welfare attempt to do.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Mark Schroeder (2010). Value and the Right Kind of Reason. Oxford Studies in Metaethics 5:25-55.
André Kukla (1995). Forster and Sober on the Curve-Fitting Problem. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 46 (2):248-252.
Thomas Hurka (2006). A Kantian Theory of Welfare? Philosophical Studies 130 (3).
Mark Alfano (2009). A Danger of Definition: Polar Predicates in Moral Theory. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 3 (3).
Jonathan Way (forthcoming). Value and Reasons to Favour. In Russ Shafer-Landau (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaethics, Volume 8. Oxford University Press.
Michael J. Zimmerman (2010). Responsibility, Reaction, and Value. Journal of Ethics 14 (2):103-115.
Jonas Olson (2009). Fitting Attitude Analyses of Value and the Partiality Challenge. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 12 (4):365 - 378.
M. J. Zimmerman (2011). Partiality and Intrinsic Value. Mind 120 (478):447-483.
K. Bykvist (2009). No Good Fit: Why the Fitting Attitude Analysis of Value Fails. Mind 118 (469):1-30.
Jens Johansson (2009). Fitting Attitudes, Welfare, and Time. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 12 (3):247 - 256.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads34 ( #35,408 of 549,754 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,425 of 549,754 )
How can I increase my downloads?