David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Utilitas 21 (3):377-392 (2009)
According to the moral standards most of us accept and live by, morality generally permits us to refrain from promoting the good of others and instead engage in non-harmful projects of our own choice. This aspect of so-called ‘ordinary morality’ has turned out to be very difficult to justify. Recently, though, various authors, including Bernard Williams and Samuel Scheffler, have proposed “Integrity Theories” that would vindicate this aspect of ordinary morality, at least in part. They are generated by treating as a default some moral theory, like consequentialism, that demands that we do a great deal of good. The theory is then modified so as to make room for individuals to pursue the projects they value most deeply, and perhaps their trivial interests as well—i.e., so as to respect individual integrity. This paper presupposes that Integrity Theories are correct and that, for the reasons given by others, they can explain why morality should grant us agent-centered prerogatives to pursue our own projects and interests. The goal is to extend this work in two respects. First, it will be shown that previous authors have not paid sufficient attention to ordinary morality’s conflicting pronouncements about agent-centered prerogatives. Second, it is argued that Integrity Theories can vindicate those conflicting intuitions by positing a special kind of obligations, relievable obligations.
|Keywords||consequentialism integrity ordinary morality prerogatives agent-centered prerogatives|
|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
Greg Scherkoske (2013). Whither Integrity II: Integrity and Impartial Morality. Philosophy Compass 8 (1):40-52.
Jill Hernandez (2013). The Integrity Objection, Reloaded. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 21 (2):145-162.
Similar books and articles
Sarah Buss (1999). Hayden Ramsay, Beyond Virtue: Integrity and Morality:Beyond Virtue: Integrity and Morality. Ethics 109 (3):671-672.
Michael Ridge (2001). Agent-Neutral Consequentialism From the Inside-Out: Concern for Integrity Without Self-Indulgence. Utilitas 13 (02):236-.
David McNaughton, Florida State University & Piers Rawling (2007). Deontology. In David Copp (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory. Oup Usa.
Bernard Williams (1988). Consequentialism and Integrity. In Samuel Scheffler (ed.), Consequentialism and its Critics. Oxford University Press. 20--50.
Peter Singer & Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek (2010). Secrecy in Consequentialism: A Defence of Esoteric Morality. Ratio 23 (1):34-58.
Peter Vallentyne (2006). Against Maximizing Act-Consequentialism (June 30, 2008). In James Dreier (ed.), Contemporary Debates in Moral Theories. Blackwell Publishers. 6--21.
Douglas W. Portmore (2011). Commonsense Consequentialism: Wherein Morality Meets Rationality. Oxford University Press.
Alex Rajczi (2007). Integrity and Ordinary Morality. American Philosophical Quarterly 44 (1):15-27.
Added to index2009-08-23
Total downloads74 ( #17,311 of 1,096,179 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #56,841 of 1,096,179 )
How can I increase my downloads?