David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Utilitas 14 (02):219- (2002)
What I call hegemonism holds that a satisfactory moral theory must in a fairly direct way guide action. This, the hegemonist believes, provides a constraint on moral theorizing. We should not accept moral theories which cannot in the proper sense guide us. There are two alternatives to hegemonism. One is motivational indirection, which is the idea that while agents remain motivated by a moral theory, they may be only indirectly motivated. The other is non-hegemonism, which holds that a correct moral theory need not in any direct or indirect sense guide or motivate actions. In the main part of the paper I discuss widely endorsed objections to motivational indirection and nonhegemonism, and I argue that these objections all fail. Hence, motivational indirection and non-hegemonism remain viable conceptions of moral theory
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Charles W. Wright (2004). Particularity and Perspective Taking: On Feminism and Habermas's Discourse Theory of Morality. Hypatia 19 (4):47-74.
B. Verbeek (2002). Game Theory and Moral Norms. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 2 (3):337-352.
James M. Humber (2002). Beyond Stockholders and Stakeholders: A Plea for Corporate Moral Autonomy. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 36 (3):207 - 221.
Jonathan Friday * (2004). Education in Moral Theory and the Improvement of Moral Thought. Journal of Moral Education 33 (1):23-33.
Alex Rajczi (2002). When Can One Requirement Override Another? Philosophical Studies 108 (3):309 - 326.
Joel Marks (2010). An Amoral Manifesto Part I. Philosophy Now (80):30-33.
Joel Marks (2010). An Amoral Manifesto Part II. Philosophy Now (81):23-26.
Bernward Gesang (2010). Are Moral Philosophers Moral Experts? Bioethics 24 (4):153-159.
James A. Ryan (1998). Moral Philosophy and Moral Psychology in Mencius. Asian Philosophy 8 (1):47 – 64.
Jason Brennan (2008). Beyond the Bottom Line: The Theoretical Goals of Moral Theorizing. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 28 (2):277-296.
Klemens Kappel (2002). Challenges to Audi's Ethical Intuitionism. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 5 (4):391-413.
Thomas W. Smythe (1999). Moral Responsibility. Journal of Value Inquiry 33 (4):493-506.
Raymond de Vries (2011). The Uses and Abuses of Moral Theory in Bioethics. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14 (4):419-430.
William L. Langenfus (1988). A Problem for Harman's Moral Relativism. Philosophy Research Archives 14:121-136.
Keith Burgess-Jackson (1993). The Problem with Contemporary Moral Theory. Hypatia 8 (3):160 - 166.
Added to index2010-08-30
Total downloads17 ( #147,710 of 1,700,362 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #206,271 of 1,700,362 )
How can I increase my downloads?