Prudence, Morality, and the Humean Theory of Reasons

Philosophical Quarterly 65 (259):220-240 (2015)

Authors
Eden Lin
Ohio State University
Abstract
Humeans about normative reasons claim that there is a reason for you to perform a given action if and only if this would promote the satisfaction of one of your desires. Their view has traditionally been thought to have the revisionary implication that an agent can sometimes lack any reason to do what morality or prudence requires. Recently, however, Mark Schroeder has denied this. If he is right, then the Humean theory accords better with common sense than it has been thought to. I argue that Schroeder is mistaken, even if welfare is understood in terms of the satisfaction of one’s desires: any Humean must concede that one can sometimes lack any reason to act morally or prudently. I also identify a novel variant on Humeanism that could perhaps avoid its revisionary implications about prudence if desire satisfactionism is the correct theory of welfare
Keywords reasons  Humean theory of reasons  prudence  desire satisfactionism  well-being  Mark Schroeder
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2015
DOI 10.1093/pq/pqu066
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 43,759
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Slaves of the Passions.Mark Schroeder - 2009 - Analysis 69 (3):574-576.
A Treatise of Human Nature.David Hume & A. D. Lindsay - 1958 - Philosophical Quarterly 8 (33):379-380.
Moral Realism.Peter Railton - 1986 - Philosophical Review 95 (2):163-207.

View all 13 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Probabilistic Promotion Revisited.Jeff Behrends & Joshua DiPaolo - 2016 - Philosophical Studies 173 (7):1735-1754.
Justifying Partiality.Errol Lord - 2016 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 19 (3):569-590.
Taking Prudence Seriously.Guy Fletcher - 2019 - In Russ Shafer-Landau (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaethics: volume 14. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 70-94.
The Reasoning View and Defeasible Practical Reasoning.Samuel Asarnow - 2017 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 95 (3):614-636.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Why I’M Still a Proportionalist.Travis N. Rieder - 2016 - Philosophical Studies 173 (1):251-270.
The Humean Theory of Reasons.Mark Schroeder - 2007 - In Russ Shafer-Landau (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaethics, Volume 2. Oxford University Press. pp. 195--219.
Humean Agent-Neutral Reasons?Daan Evers - 2009 - Philosophical Explorations 12 (1):55 – 67.
Slaves of the Passions.Mark Schroeder - 2007 - Oxford University Press.
Wise Action: An Examination of Prudence and Morality.David Phillips Kaspar - 2003 - Dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo
'Humean' Rationality, Morality, and Reasons for Action.John Joseph Tilley - 1988 - Dissertation, The University of Wisconsin - Madison
Still Waiting for a Plausible Humean Theory of Reasons.Nicholas Shackel - 2014 - Philosophical Studies 167 (3):607-633.
Ethical Relativism and Ethical Reasons.Mark Steven van Roojen - 1993 - Dissertation, Princeton University
Prudence and the Reasons of Rational Persons.Duncan MacIntosh - 2001 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 79 (3):346 – 365.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2015-04-03

Total views
92 ( #87,905 of 2,264,819 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
11 ( #84,246 of 2,264,819 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature