This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
Noteworthy exceptions are the sensibility theories of John McDowell and David Wiggins. For a nice overview of the distinction between contemporary continuity and discontinuity theories see Darwall (1997).
It is worth noting that Drummond does not deny the possibility of failing to see the other as worthy of respect due to dissimilarity, “as the literature of the invisibility of blacks, of Indians to their British lords, of women in largely male meetings testifies” (Drummond 2006, p. 22). But because of his use of Husserl, Smith denies Drummond any recourse to Drummond’s own account of the criticizability of such failures.
References
Anscombe, G. E. M. (1958). Modern moral philosophy. Philosophy, 33(24), 1–20.
Crowell, S. G. (2007). Sorge or Selbstbewuβtein? Heidegger and Korsgaard on the sources of normativity. European Journal of Philosophy, 15(3), 315–333.
Darwall, S., A. Gibbard, and P. Railton (Eds.) (1997). Toward fin de siècle ethics: Some trends. In Moral discourse and practice (pp. 3-47). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Darwall, S. (2006). The second-person standpoint: Morality, respect, and accountability. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Drummond, J. J. (2006). Respect as a moral emotion. Husserl Studies, 22(1), 1–27.
Williams, B. (1996). History, morality, and the test of reflection. In The Sources of Normativity (pp. 210–218). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ozar, A.C. Smith, William Hosmer: The Phenomenology of Moral Normativity . Husserl Stud 32, 67–73 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10743-015-9184-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10743-015-9184-2