David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Social Philosophy and Policy 27 (2):64-110 (2010)
Twentieth century philosophers introduced the distinction between “objective rightness” and “subjective rightness” to achieve two primary goals. The first goal is to reduce the paradoxical tension between our judgments of (i) what is best for an agent to do in light of the actual circumstances in which she acts and (ii) what is wisest for her to do in light of her mistaken or uncertain beliefs about her circumstances. The second goal is to provide moral guidance to an agent who may be uncertain about the circumstances in which she acts, and hence is unable to use her standard moral principle directly in deciding what to do. This paper distinguishes two important senses of “moral guidance”; proposes criteria of adequacy for accounts of subjective rightness; canvasses existing definitions for “subjective rightness”; finds them all deficient; and proposes a new and more successful account. It argues that each comprehensive moral theory must include multiple principles of subjective rightness to address the epistemic situations of the full range of moral decision-makers, and shows that accounts of subjective rightness formulated in terms of what it would reasonable for the agent to believe cannot provide that guidance.
|Keywords||subjective obligation objective obligation subjective ought objective ought dual-oughts view subjective rightness|
|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
Stephanie Collins (2013). Collectives' Duties and Collectivisation Duties. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 91 (2):231-248.
Fred Feldman (2012). True and Useful: On the Structure of a Two Level Normative Theory. Utilitas 24 (02):151-171.
Alfred Archer (2013). Supererogation and Intentions of the Agent. Philosophia 41 (2):447-462.
Rob van Someren Greve (2014). The Value of Practical Usefulness. Philosophical Studies 168 (1):167-177.
Similar books and articles
V. Haksar (1981). Nagel on Subjective and Objective. Inquiry 24 (March):105-21.
Eric Vogelstein (2012). Subjective Reasons. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (2):239-257.
Thomas Nagel (1979). Subjective and Objective. In Mortal Questions. Cambridge University Press. 207-222.
Michael J. Zimmerman (2006). Is Moral Obligation Objective or Subjective? Utilitas 18 (4):329-361.
John M. Hems (1955). Subjective and Objective Rightness. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 15 (4):558-562.
Gerald Lang (2004). A Dilemma for Objective Act-Utilitarianism. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 3 (2):221-239.
Holly M. Smith (2010). The Moral Clout of Reasonable Beliefs. In Mark Timmons (ed.), Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics, Vol. I. Oxford University Press.
Michael J. Zimmerman (2006). On the Fulfillment of Moral Obligation. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 9 (5):577 - 597.
Added to index2010-06-17
Total downloads113 ( #7,070 of 1,089,063 )
Recent downloads (6 months)9 ( #12,148 of 1,089,063 )
How can I increase my downloads?