Don Loeb
University of Vermont
Demands for generality sometimes exert a powerful influence on our thinking, pressing us to treat more general moral positions, such as consequentialism, as superior to more specific ones, like those which incorporate agent-centered restrictions or prerogatives. I articulate both foundationalist and coherentist versions of the demands for generality and argue that we can best understand these demands in terms of a certain underlying metaphysical commitment. I consider and reject various arguments which might be offered in support of this commitment, and argue that generality may not be the weapon in moral argument that it is sometimes thought to be
Keywords Analytic Philosophy  Contemporary Philosophy  Philosophy of Mind
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s) 0031-8205
DOI 10.2307/2108466
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,265
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Specificity of the Generality Problem.Earl Conee - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 163 (3):751-762.
Do We Really Want a Moral Justification of Our Basic Ideals?James R. Flynn - 1974 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 17 (1-4):151 – 173.
Why the Generality Problem is Everybody’s Problem.Michael A. Bishop - 2010 - Philosophical Studies 151 (2):285 - 298.


Added to PP index

Total views
91 ( #128,298 of 2,507,683 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
20 ( #43,597 of 2,507,683 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes