Normative Authority and the Foundations of Ethics

Abstract

My dissertation explores the foundations of ethics—the question of whether and where practical justification comes to an end. What reason do we have to be moral? Is the fact that something is pleasurable at least a defeasible reason to pursue it, and if so, why? I argue that the only way to answer such questions is to look at what is constitutive of action. Nonnormative facts about the nature of agency can ground the normative authority of reasons for action. Recently, an influential group of externalists about reasons for action have argued that normativity is sui generis and cannot be further explained. Recently, too, many of the most prominent internalists to offer an explanation of normative force have merely assimilated the problem to one about motivational force. I argue that neither position is satisfactory. We need answers to our practical questions, and externalism has none to offer beyond brute intuitions. A purely motivational internalism, on the other hand, seems to fall well short of a normative theory. Appeals to facts about motivation do not answer the question of what we have reason to do; they bypass it in favor of the question of what we are going to do. Fortunately, there is a middle way that combines the best of both views: constitutivism. An account of practical normativity based on action’s constitutive aim can explain both how we are governed or moved by reasons and how those reasons have genuine, objective authority. The constitutive aim of action sets the agenda for practical reasoning, and considerations that engage this aim are the ones that bring such reasoning to a close. They settle the practical question of what to do. But if, as I maintain, the normative question of what I ought to do (or what I have reason to do) seeks considerations that bear on the practical question of what to do, then answers to the latter are ipso facto answers to the former. In this way, nonnormative facts about what closes practical deliberation can ground fully normative facts about what we have reason to do.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,628

External links

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

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

Normativity in Comparative Religious Ethics.Kevin Jung - 2017 - Journal of Religious Ethics 45 (4):642-665.
The Authoritative Normativity of Fitting Attitudes.R. A. Rowland - 2022 - Oxford Studies in Metaethics 17:108-137.
Brute Rationality: Normativity and Human Action.Joshua Gert - 2004 - New York: Cambridge University Press.
Can the aim of belief ground epistemic normativity?Charles Côté-Bouchard - 2016 - Philosophical Studies 173 (12):3181-3198.
Why be rational.Niko Kolodny - 2005 - Mind 114 (455):509-563.
Can There Be Government House Reasons for Action?Hille Paakkunainen - 2017 - Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 12 (1):56-93.
III—Normative Facts and Reasons.Fabienne Peter - 2019 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 119 (1):53-75.
The Normative Force of Promising.Jack Woods - 2016 - Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics 6:77-101.
Reasons, normativity, and value in aesthetics.Alex King - 2021 - Philosophy Compass 17 (1):1-17.
Value-First Accounts of Reasons and Fit.R. A. Rowland - 2023 - In Chris Howard & R. A. Rowland (eds.), Fittingness. OUP.

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-12-07

Downloads
5 (#1,534,828)

6 months
5 (#625,196)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Matthew Silverstein
New York University, Abu Dhabi

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references