In Helen Beebee & Anthony Fisher (eds.), Perspectives on the Philosophy of David K. Lewis. Oxford University Press (forthcoming)

Authors
Daniel Nolan
University of Notre Dame
Abstract
David Lewis rejected consequentialism in ethics. However, two aspects of his meta-ethical views make it a challenge to see how consequentialism could be resisted. Lewis endorses a maximising conception of rationality, where to be rational is to maximise value of a certain sort; he appears to think it is possible to be both rational and moral; and yet he rejects conceptions of moral action as acting to maximise moral value. The second tension in Lewis's views arises from his meta-ethics. Lewis's naturalisation of morality is in terms of a naturalised account of value, including moral value. Insofar as he offers a motivational story for moral judgements, it is one that goes via a motivational connection to value. Yet his anti-consequentialism seems to commit him to rejecting a story of moral action entirely in terms of pursuit of moral value. In both cases there are things to be said about how to weave these strands of Lewis's thought together. After setting out these two apparent tensions in Lewis's thought about ethics, the paper discusses what a Lewisian could best say about these puzzles. Lewisians do have a number of plausible options for dealing with the first challenge. While there are things a Lewisian could attempt to extend Lewis's moral naturalism in a way that could deal with the second challenge, it is harder to see how to do this in a satisfying way. Attention then turns to what Lewis said in his letters on these topics: on that basis, perhaps Lewis was close to being an agent-relative consequentialist after all.
Keywords David Lewis  Consequentialism  Decision Theory  Subjectivism  Moral Naturalism  Moral Motivation  Moral Value
Categories (categorize this paper)
Buy the book Find it on Amazon.com
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

What Do Philosophers Believe?David Bourget & David J. Chalmers - 2014 - Philosophical Studies 170 (3):465-500.
On the Plurality of Worlds.David Lewis - 1986 - Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l'Etranger 178 (3):388-390.
Causal Decision Theory.David Lewis - 1981 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 59 (1):5 – 30.
Philosophical Papers, Volume 1.David Lewis - 1983 - Oxford University Press USA.
David Lewis.Daniel Nolan - 2005 - Mcgill-Queen's University Press.

View all 22 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Consequentialize This.Campbell Brown - 2011 - Ethics 121 (4):749-771.
Normativity, Moral Realism, and Unmasking Explanations.Josep Corbí - 2010 - Theoria : An International Journal for Theory, History and Fundations of Science 19 (2):155-172.
Reason and Desire in C. I. Lewis.Eric B. Dayton - 1975 - Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 11 (4):289 - 304.
Moral Theory and its Role in Everyday Moral Thought and Action.Brad Hooker - 2018 - In Karen Jones Aaron Zimmerman, Aaron Zimmerman, Karen Jones & Mark Timmons (eds.), The Routledge Handbook on Moral Epistemology. New York, USA: Routledge. pp. 387-400.
Doing the Best One Can.Ittay Nissan-Rozen - 2011 - Dissertation, London School of Economics
The Moral Oracle’s Test.Sven Ove Hansson - 2014 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 17 (4):643-651.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2021-03-05

Total views
52 ( #196,318 of 2,426,001 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
52 ( #15,221 of 2,426,001 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes