Deontic Restrictions Are Not Agent-Relative Restrictions
Social Philosophy and Policy 15 (2):61 (1998)
Abstract
The primary purpose of this essay is to offer a critique of a particular program within moral and political philosophy. This program can be stated quite succinctly. It is to account for agents' being subject to deontic restrictions on the basis of their possession of agent-relative reasons for acting in accordance with those restrictions. Needless to say, the statement of this program requires some further explication. Specifically, two claims require explanation: the reasons individuals have for or against engaging in particular actions are, at least to a very significant extent, agent-relative rather than agent-neutral; and agents' conduct toward others is subject to deontic restrictions. Finally, I need to explain why an agent's possession of agent-relative reasons for performing or refraining from certain actions may be thought to explain that agent's being subject to certain deontic restrictionsAuthor's Profile
My notes
Similar books and articles
Patrolling the borders of consequentialist justifications: The scope of agent-relative restrictions. [REVIEW]Michael S. Moore - 2007 - Law and Philosophy 27 (1):35 - 96.
Kamm on inviolability and agent-relative restrictions.Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen - 2009 - Res Publica 15 (2):165-178.
Let the patients smoke: a defence of a patient privilege.M. Lavin - 1990 - Journal of Medical Ethics 16 (3):136-140.
Scheffler on the independence of agent-centered preogatives from agent-centered restrictions.Larry A. Alexander - 1987 - Journal of Philosophy 84 (5):277-283.
Calvin’s Restrictions on Interest: Guidelines for the Credit Crisis. [REVIEW]J. J. Graafland - 2010 - Journal of Business Ethics 96 (2):233 - 248.
Agent-centred restrictions, rationality, and the virtues.Samuel Scheffler - 1985 - Mind 94 (375):409-419.
Agent-centered restrictions from the inside out.Stephen Darwall - 1986 - Philosophical Studies 50 (3):291 - 319.
Agent-centered restrictions: Clearing the air of paradox.Paul Hurley - 1997 - Ethics 108 (1):120-146.
Analytics
Added to PP
2010-08-31
Downloads
67 (#181,074)
6 months
1 (#454,876)
2010-08-31
Downloads
67 (#181,074)
6 months
1 (#454,876)
Historical graph of downloads
Author's Profile
Citations of this work
Reasons for action: Agent-neutral vs. Agent-relative.Michael Ridge - 2011 - The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
What is deontology? Part two: Reasons to act. [REVIEW]Gerald F. Gaus - 2001 - Journal of Value Inquiry 35 (2):179-193.
You Don't Have to Do What's Best! (A problem for consequentialists and other teleologists).S. Andrew Schroeder - 2011 - In Mark Timmons (ed.), Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics. Oxford University Press.
References found in this work
Review: Non-Consequentialism, the Person as an End-in-Itself, and the Significance of Status. [REVIEW]Frances Kamm - 1992 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 21 (4):354 - 389.