The Journal of Ethics 21 (4):351-373 (2017)

Abstract
In this paper, I motivate and defend the distinction between an objective and a subjective moral sense of “ought.” I begin by looking at the standard way the distinction is motivated, namely by appealing to relatively simple cases where an agent does something she thinks is best, but her action has a tragic outcome. I argue that these cases fail to do the job—the intuitions they elicit can be explained without having to distinguish between different senses of “ought.” However, these cases are on the right track—I argue that more sophisticated versions of the cases provide strong motivation for the distinction. I then discuss two important problems for the distinction: the “which ‘ought’ is more important?” problem, and the “annoying profusion of ‘oughts’” problem. I argue that each of these problems can be solved in several different ways.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s10892-017-9258-9
Options
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: 64,159
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

Ifs and Oughts.Niko Kolodny & John MacFarlane - 2010 - Journal of Philosophy 107 (3):115-143.
The Right and the Good.Some Problems in Ethics.W. D. Ross & H. W. B. Joseph - 1933 - Journal of Philosophy 30 (19):517-527.
The Nature of Normativity.Chris Alen Sula - 2007 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 11 (2):227-228.

View all 31 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Being More Realistic About Reasons: On Rationality and Reasons Perspectivism.Clayton Littlejohn - 2019 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 99 (3):605-627.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Subjective Rightness.Holly M. Smith - 2010 - Social Philosophy and Policy 27 (2):64-110.
Objective and Subjective Probability in Gene Expression.Joel D. Velasco - 2012 - Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology 110:5-10.
The Fault of Not Knowing.George Fletcher - 2002 - Theoretical Inquiries in Law 3 (2).
Some Remarks on the 'Objective' and 'Subjective' Interpretations of the Attributes.Charles E. Jarrett - 1977 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 20 (1-4):447 – 456.
Doing, Allowing, and the Problem of Evil.Daniel Lim - 2017 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 81 (3):273-289.
Subjective Rightness: Holly M. Smith.Holly M. Smith - 2010 - Social Philosophy and Policy 27 (2):64-110.
Epistemic and Moral Obligation Regarding Believing.Colin Russell Mathers - 1998 - Dissertation, The University of Rochester
The Teleological/Deontological Distinction.Peter Vallentyne - 1987 - Journal of Value Inquiry 21 (1):21-32.
Active and Passive Euthanasia.Natalie Abrams - 1978 - Philosophy 53 (204):257 - 263.
Moral Motivation, Moral Phenomenology, And The Alief/Belief Distinction.Uriah Kriegel - 2012 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90 (3):469-486.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2017-11-01

Total views
73 ( #148,472 of 2,454,812 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
5 ( #143,372 of 2,454,812 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes