Despite widespread agreement that we have moral responsibilities to future generations, many are reluctant to frame the issues in terms of justice and rights. There are indeed philosophical challenges here, particularly concerning nonoverlapping generations. They can, however, be met. For example, talk of justice and rights for future generations in connection with climate change is both appropriate and important, although it requires revising some common theoretical assumptions about the nature of justice and rights. We can, in fact, be bound by (...) the rights of future people, despite the “non-identity problem,” and the force of these rights cannot be diluted by “discounting” future costs. Moreover, a rights-based approach provides an effective answer to political arguments against taking mandatory measures to curb greenhouse gas emissions when these are unpopular with a democratic populace. (shrink)
The distinction between harm that is intended as a means or end, and harm that is merely a foreseen side-effect of one’s action, is widely cited as a significant factor in a variety of ethical contexts. Many use it, for example, to distinguish terrorist acts from certain acts of war that may have similar results as side-effects. Yet Bennett and others have argued that its application is so arbitrary that if it can be used to cast certain harmful actions in (...) a more favorable light, then it can equally be manipulated to do the same for any kind of harmful action. In response, some have tried to block such extensions of the intend/foresee distinction by rejecting its application in cases where the relation between the plainly intended means and the harm is “too close”. This move, however, has been attacked as vague and obscure, and Bennett has argued that all the plausible candidates for explicating the idea of excessive closeness ultimately fail. In this paper, I develop and defend an account of excessive closeness with the aim of rescuing the intend/foresee distinction from such charges of arbitrariness. The account is based on the distinction between merely causal and constitutive relations among states of affairs, and I show both how it escapes Bennett’s objections to other accounts and how it applies to a variety of cases. Finally, I also examine Quinn’s alternative move of shifting the focus of the intend/foresee distinction in an attempt to sidestep the issue of closeness, and argue that it is not ultimately successful. In fact, Quinn’s view has shortcomings that can be resolved only by returning to an appeal to some notion of closeness, underscoring the need for the sort of account I offer. (shrink)
While differing widely in other respects, both neo-Humean and neo-Kantian approaches to normativity embrace an internalist thesis linking reasons for acting to potential motivation. This thesis pushes in different directions depending on the underlying view of the powers of practical reason, but either way it sets the stage for an attack on realist attempts to ground reasons directly in facts about value. How can reasons that are not somehow grounded in motivational features of the agent nonetheless count as reasons for (...) that particular agent, having genuine normative force for her? Won't any realist, externalist view threaten to alienate the individual from the reasons that obtain for her, particularly if she fails (even after rational deliberation) to care about the values that are supposed to ground them? I argue that such objections can successfully be answered, and that externalist views of reasons need not be plagued with normative alienation. Focusing largely on a recent debate between Williams and McDowell over the nature of normative reasons, I show that a value-based externalist theory, when properly conceived, can account for the normative relevance of reasons to the particular agents for whom they obtain. Moreover, Williams's own sophisticated neo-Humeanism turns out to be vulnerable to parallel charges of normative alienation, which it cannot escape without compromising the very psychologistic orientation that has been its chief attraction. Realist externalism about reasons turns out to be a more viable and attractive alternative to both neo-Humeanism and neo-Kantianism than many currently take it to be. (shrink)
This work is an examination of teleological attributions (i.e. ascriptions of proper functions and natural ends) to the features and behavior of living things, with a view ultimately to understanding their application to human life and the significance they may or may not have for an understanding of human nature and values. The author argues that such teleological attributions do indeed apply to living things, including human beings, and that this sheds substantial light on what living things are; interestingly, it (...) also reveals the existence of objective, species-relative norms in nature-standards of a certain kinds of goodness or badness inherent in the natures of living things. A large part of the work is devoted to arguing for an account of natural teleology that is both biologically responsible and sensitive to a number of distinctively philosophical concerns. This account makes a unique contribution to the literature in the philosophy of biology by incorporating a detailed concern with evolutionary cause history without embracing the overly reductionistic tendencies of other evolutionary oriented views. One important upshot of the account is that an organism's natural proper function-whether physiological or behavioral-cannot be understood as being generally or ultimately welfare-oriented, but must be understood on a very different model. It is this that the author argues ultimately undermines any attempt (still popular among some neo-Aristotelians) to appeal to natural standards of proper functioning in human life, at the level of character and action, to underwrite ethical judgements about human goodness or badness. It also shows that while natural teleology in human life reveals something important about what we are, this misses another crucial side of human nature, which enables us largely to transcend our natural ends and is what makes for the possibility of genuine moral agency. (shrink)
