A defence of categorical reasons

Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 109 (1pt2):189-206 (2009)
In this paper I offer two arguments designed to defend the existence of categorical reasons, which I define as those justifying considerations that obtain independently of their relation to an agent's commitments. The first argument is based on certain paradigm cases meant to reveal difficulties for practical instrumentalism—the view, as I define it here, that categorical reasons do not exist, because all reasons must serve the commitments of the agents to whom they apply. The second argument relies on considerations of responsibility and blame to establish the existence of categorical reasons.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/j.1467-9264.2009.00264.x
 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

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 22,660
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
Gilbert Harman (1975). Moral Relativism Defended. Philosophical Review 84 (1):3-22.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Justin Morton (2016). A New Evolutionary Debunking Argument Against Moral Realism. Journal of the American Philosophical Association 2 (2):233-253.

View all 7 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

204 ( #16,526 of 1,938,852 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

8 ( #71,379 of 1,938,852 )

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.