Moral motivation
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2006)
| Abstract | In our everyday lives, we confront a host of moral issues. Once we have deliberated and formed judgments about what is right or wrong, good or bad, these judgments tend to have a marked hold on us. Although in the end, we do not always behave as we think we ought, our moral judgments typically motivate us, at least to some degree, to act in accordance with them. When philosophers talk about moral motivation, this is the basic phenomenon they seek to understand. Moral motivation is an instance of a more general phenomenon—what we might call normative motivation—for our other normative judgments also typically have some motivating force. When we make the normative judgment that something is good for us, or that we have a reason to act in a particular way, or that a specific course of action is the rational course, we also tend to be moved. Many philosophers have regarded the motivating force of normative judgments as the key feature that marks them as normative, thereby distinguishing them from the many other judgments we make. In contrast to our normative judgments, our mathematical and empirical judgments, for example, seem to have no intrinsic connection to motivation and action. The belief that an antibiotic will cure a specific infection may move an individual to take the antibiotic, if she also believes that she has the infection, and if she either desires to be cured or judges that she ought to treat the infection for her own good. All on its own, however, an empirical belief like this one appears to carry with it no particular motivational impact; a person can judge that an antibiotic will most effectively cure a specific infection without being moved one way or another. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,672 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesConnie S. Rosati (2009). Relational Good and the Multiplicity Problem. Philosophical Issues 19 (1):205-234.
Connie S. Rosati (1995). Persons, Perspectives, and Full Information Accounts of the Good. Ethics 105 (2):296-325.
Connie S. Rosati (2008). Objectivism and Relational Good. Social Philosophy and Policy 25 (1):314-349.
Connie S. Rosati (1995). Naturalism, Normativity, and the Open Question Argument. Noûs 29 (1):46-70.
Connie S. Rosati (2000). Brandt's Notion of Therapeutic Agency. Ethics 110 (4):780-811.
Connie S. Rosati (2003). Agency and the Open Question Argument. Ethics 113 (3):490-527.
Connie S. Rosati (2006). Personal Good. In Terry Horgan & Mark Timmons (eds.), Metaethics After Moore. Oxford University Press.
C. Daniel Batson (2011). What’s Wrong with Morality? Emotion Review 3 (3):230-236.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads36 ( #32,993 of 549,067 )Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,252 of 549,067 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
