David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Ethics 14 (2):103-115 (2010)
Many writers accept the following thesis about responsibility: (R) For one to be responsible for something is for one to be such that it is fitting that one be the object of some reactive attitude with respect to that thing. This thesis bears a striking resemblance to a thesis about value that is also accepted by many writers: (V) For something to be good (or neutral, or bad) is for it to be such that it is fitting that it be the object of some pro-attitude (or indifference, or some contra-attitude). V has been the subject of intense debate in recent years, in part because of its incorporation into what has come to be called the “buck-passing” account of value. In particular, V is open to three challenges: that it is not necessarily the case that whatever is good is the fitting object of a pro-attitude; that it is not necessarily the case that whatever is the fitting object of a pro-attitude is good; and that, even if there is a strict equivalence between what is good and what is the fitting object of a pro-attitude, still the former is not to be analyzed in terms of the latter. The resemblance between V and R has not been previously commented on, but, once it is recognized, it is clear that R is open to challenges that resemble those to which V is vulnerable. This paper explores both the challenges to V and the parallel challenges to R and discusses responses that may be given to these challenges. The interrelation between V and R is then examined, and a general lesson is drawn concerning how to adjudicate disputes about the nature of moral responsibility.
|Keywords||Responsibility Value Reactive attitudes Fitting attitudes P. F. Strawson|
|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
Robert Merrihew Adams (1985). Involuntary Sins. Philosophical Review 94 (1):3-31.
Brand Blanshard (1961). Reason and Goodness. New York, Macmillan.
Richard B. Brandt (1959). Ethical Theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.,Prentice-Hall.
Johan Brännmark (2008). Excellence and Means: On the Limits of Buck-Passing. [REVIEW] Journal of Value Inquiry 42 (3):301-315.
Franz Brentano (1889/1902). The Origin of the Knowledge of Right and Wrong. ARCHIBALD CONSTABLE & CO.
Citations of this work BETA
Ishtiyaque Haji (2012). Reason, Responsibility, and Free Will: Reply to My Critics. [REVIEW] Journal of Ethics 16 (2):175-209.
Similar books and articles
Matt King (2012). Moral Responsibility and Merit. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 6 (2).
Mark Alfano (2009). A Danger of Definition: Polar Predicates in Moral Theory. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 3 (3).
Pamela Hieronymi (2008). Responsibility for Believing. Synthese 161 (3):357-373.
Toni Rønnow-Rasmussen (2007). Analysing Personal Value. Journal of Ethics 11 (4):405 - 435.
Chris Heathwood (2008). Fitting Attitudes and Welfare. Oxford Studies in Metaethics 3:47-73.
Wlodek Rabinowicz & Toni Rønnow‐Rasmussen (2004). The Strike of the Demon: On Fitting Pro‐Attitudes and Value. Ethics 114 (3):391-423.
K. Bykvist (2009). No Good Fit: Why the Fitting Attitude Analysis of Value Fails. Mind 118 (469):1-30.
Jonathan Way (2013). Value and Reasons to Favour. Oxford Studies in Metaethics 8.
Jonas Olson (2009). Fitting Attitude Analyses of Value and the Partiality Challenge. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 12 (4):365 - 378.
M. J. Zimmerman (2011). Partiality and Intrinsic Value. Mind 120 (478):447-483.
Added to index2010-03-01
Total downloads78 ( #17,056 of 1,101,088 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #44,461 of 1,101,088 )
How can I increase my downloads?