Res Philosophica 92 (2):341-370 (2015)

Authors
Dana Howard
Ohio State University
Abstract
We often find ourselves in situations where it is up to us to make decisions on behalf of others. How can we determine whether such decisions are morally justified, especially if those decisions may change who it is these others end up becoming? In this paper, I will evaluate one plausible kind of justification that may tempt us: we may want to justify our decision by appealing to the likelihood that the other person will be glad we made that specific choice down the line. Although it is tempting, I ultimately argue that we should reject this sort of appeal as a plausible justification for the moral permissibility of our vicarious decisions. This is because the decisions that we make on behalf of another may affect the interests and values that that person will hold in the future. As I will show, this complicates the justificatory relationship between present decisions and future attitudes, since the latter can depend on the former. This is not to say that the predicted future attitudes of others can play no significant role in justifying our decisions on others’ behalf. Rather, appealing to the future attitudes in our moral justifications may play an important role in our practical thinking but only when we consider the future attitudes of all relevant possible futures.
Keywords transformative experiences  adaptive preferences  bioethics
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.11612/resphil.2015.92.2.9
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
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

Sour Grapes: Studies in the Subversion of Rationality.Jon Elster - 1983 - Editions De La Maison des Sciences De L'Homme.
Paternalism.Gerald Dworkin - 1972 - The Monist 56 (1):64-84.
What You Can't Expect When You're Expecting'.L. A. Paul - 2015 - Res Philosophica 92 (2):1-23.

View all 27 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Transformative Choice: Discussion and Replies.L. A. Paul - 2015 - Res Philosophica 92 (2):473-545.
Should Education Be Transformative?Douglas W. Yacek - 2020 - Journal of Moral Education 49 (2):257-274.
Transformative Choices and the Specter of Regret.Dana Howard - forthcoming - Journal of the American Philosophical Association.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Transforming Will, Transforming Culture.Jeanneatte Mageo - 2010 - In Keith M. Murphy & C. Jason Throop (eds.), Toward an Anthropology of the Will. Stanford University Press.
Moral Reasoning.Gilbert Harman, Kelby Mason & Walter Sinnott-Armstrong - 2010 - In John Michael Doris (ed.), The Moral Psychology Handbook. Oxford University Press.
Some Thoughts on the Limits of Legal Reasoning.L. Reis - 1971 - Logique Et Analyse 14 (53):137.
Reasoning with Factors.Giovanni Sartor - 2005 - Argumentation 19 (4):417-432.
On Having a Reason.Stuart Hampshire - 1977 - Royal Institute of Philosophy Lectures 11:86-98.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2015-09-04

Total views
138 ( #79,804 of 2,462,141 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
34 ( #25,460 of 2,462,141 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes