Southern Journal of Philosophy 28 (3):427-447 (1990)

Authors
Anita Superson
University of Kentucky
Abstract
I examine the self-interest based contractarian's attempt to answer the question, "Why be moral?" In order to defeat the skeptic who accepts reasons of self-interest only, contractarians must show that the best theory of practical reasons includes moral reasons. They must show that it is rational to act morally even when doing so conflicts with self-interest. ;I examine theories offered by Hobbes, Baier, and Grice, and show they fail to defeat skepticism. Hobbes' theory gives no special weight to moral reasons as they can be eliminated in favor of prudential reasons; Baier's theory fails to establish that from the fact that it is rational to adopt the moral points of view, it is rational to act from it; and Grice's theory attempts to link promising, obligations, and reasons, but leaves certain crucial points in the argument undefended. ;In Morals by Agreement, Gauthier offers the best theory of its kind, and treatment of it constitutes the bulk of the thesis. Gauthier tries to refute the skeptic by showing that it is in one's interest to adopt a moral disposition, and that every action expressing the disposition is rational. The dispositional move is one the contractarian must make to avoid the problems facing the other theories examined. But Gautheir's argument for the rationality of the disposition relies on an empirically dubious assumption of translucency, and as such, fails to show that persons in ordinary circumstances are rational to be moral. Moreover, Gauthier fails to show that the rationality of the disposition carries over to the particular actions expressing it. The alternative view, called the "Independency Thesis," is more plausible than Gauthier's, but not available to him. Thus the contractarian fails to defeat skepticism
Keywords Analytic Philosophy  Contemporary Philosophy  General Interest
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s) 0038-4283
DOI 10.1111/j.2041-6962.1990.tb00552.x
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 50,391
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Looking for Answers in All the Wrong Places.Earl W. Spurgin - 2004 - Business Ethics Quarterly 14 (2):293-313.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Moral Skeptic.Anita M. Superson - 2009 - Oxford University Press.
Contractarianism and the Assumption of Mutual Unconcern.Peter Vallentyne - 1989 - Philosophical Studies 56 (2):187 - 192.
Humean Minds and Moral Theory.Sheldon Wein - 1988 - Philosophy Research Archives 14:229-236.
The Moral Skeptic. By Anita Superson.Lisa Tessman - 2011 - Hypatia 26 (4):883-887.
Feminist Ethics: Defeating the Why-Be-Moral Skeptic.Anita M. Superson - 1998 - Journal of Social Philosophy 29 (2):59-86.
Knowing What Matters.Richard Yetter Chappell - 2017 - In Peter Singer (ed.), Does Anything Really Matter? Essays on Parfit on Objectivity. Oxford University Press. pp. 149-167.
Pure Contractarianism: Promise, Problems, Prospects.Robert Bass - 2000 - Journal of Value Inquiry 34 (2-3):319-332.
Is Hume a Moral Skeptic?James Fieser - 1989 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 50 (1):89-105.
The Physician-Patient Relationship: Models and Criticisms.Howard Brody - 1987 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 2 (2).

Analytics

Added to PP index
2010-09-15

Total views
59 ( #156,040 of 2,326,161 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #284,939 of 2,326,161 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes