The puzzle of pure moral deference

Philosophical Perspectives 23 (1):321-344 (2009)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Case B. You tell me that eating meat is immoral. Although I believe that, left to my own devices, I would not think this, no matter how long I reflected, I adopt your attitude as my own. It is not that I believe that you are better informed about potentially relevant non-moral facts (e.g., about the conditions under which livestock is kept, or about the typical effects of eliminating meat from one’s diet). On the contrary, I know that I have all of the non-moral information relevant to the issue that you have.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 77,869

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-10-17

Downloads
289 (#43,646)

6 months
12 (#89,688)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Sarah McGrath
Princeton University

Citations of this work

In defense of moral testimony.Paulina Sliwa - 2012 - Philosophical Studies 158 (2):175-195.
Moral Worth and Moral Knowledge.Paulina Sliwa - 2016 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 93 (2):393-418.
Moral anti-realism.Richardn D. Joyce - 2015 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

View all 65 citations / Add more citations