Book contents
- Ethics in the Gray Area
- Ethics in the Gray Area
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Preface
- Introduction
- Chapter 1 Meaning Tracks Use
- Chapter 2 Conflicting Reasons
- Chapter 3 Conflicting Sources of Normativity
- Chapter 4 The Binary Theory
- Chapter 5 Moral Indeterminacy and Vagueness
- Chapter 6 Normative Ethics for Gradualists
- Chapter 7 Rational Choice for Gradualists
- Chapter 8 Indeterminate and Vague Laws
- Chapter 9 Depolarization
- Conclusions
- References
- Index
- References
References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 May 2023
Book contents
- Ethics in the Gray Area
- Ethics in the Gray Area
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Preface
- Introduction
- Chapter 1 Meaning Tracks Use
- Chapter 2 Conflicting Reasons
- Chapter 3 Conflicting Sources of Normativity
- Chapter 4 The Binary Theory
- Chapter 5 Moral Indeterminacy and Vagueness
- Chapter 6 Normative Ethics for Gradualists
- Chapter 7 Rational Choice for Gradualists
- Chapter 8 Indeterminate and Vague Laws
- Chapter 9 Depolarization
- Conclusions
- References
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Ethics in the Gray AreaA Gradualist Theory of Right and Wrong, pp. 208 - 215Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Andric, V. and Tanyi, A. (2016a). “Multidimensional Consequentialism and Risk.” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 19: 49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andric, V. and Tanyi, A. (2016b). “Multidimensional Consequentialism and Degrees of Rightness.” Philosophical Studies, 173: 711–731.Google Scholar
Aristotle, . (1910). Nicomachean Ethics, trans. D. P. Chase. London: George Routledge & Sons; Internet Archive, https://archive.org/details/nicomacheaneth00arisialaGoogle Scholar
Arrhenius, G. (2000). Future Generations: A Challenge for Moral Theory. Diss., Uppsala: University Printers.Google Scholar
Audi, R. (1997). “Preventing Abortion as a Test Case for the Justifiability of Violence.” The Journal of Ethics, 1: 141–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bader, R. (2014). “Review of Martin Peterson’s: The Dimensions of Consequentialism.” Dialectica, 68: 620–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bales, A. (2018). “Indeterminate Permissibility and Choiceworthy Options.” Philosophical Studies, 175: 1693–1702.Google Scholar
Barnes, E. (2010a). “Arguments against Metaphysical Indeterminacy and Vagueness.” Philosophy Compass, 5: 953–964.Google Scholar
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. WIPO website: Treaties and Contracting Parties. Retrieved September 22, 1887. www.wipo.int/Google Scholar
Boole, G. (1857). “On the Application of the Theory of Probabilities to the Question of the Combination of Testimonies or Judgments.” Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 21: 597–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovens, L. and Rabinowicz, W. (2004). “Voting Procedures for Complex Collective Decisions. An Epistemic Perspective.” Ratio Juris, 17: 241–258.Google Scholar
Bradley, B., Feldman, F. and Johansson, J., eds. (2012). The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Death. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, C. (2016). “The Rightest Theory of Degrees of Rightness.” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 19: 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brugger, E. C. (2012). “The Problem of Fetal Pain and Abortion: Toward an Ethical Consensus for Appropriate Behavior.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 22: 263–287.Google Scholar
Calder, T. (2005). “Kant and Degrees of Wrongness.” Journal of Value Inquiry, 39: 229.Google Scholar
Cameron, R. (2008). “Turtles All the Way Down: Regress, Priority and Fundamentality.” Philosophical Quarterly, 58: 1–14.Google Scholar
Cappelen, H. (2020). “Conceptual Engineering: The Master Argument.” In Burgess, A., Cappelen, H., and Plunkett, D. (eds.), Conceptual Engineering and Conceptual Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 132–151.Google Scholar
Carrier, L. S. (1975). “Abortion and the Right to Life.” Social Theory and Practice, 3: 381–401.Google Scholar
Christensen, D. (2007). “Epistemology of Disagreement: The Good News.” Philosophical Review, 116: 187–217.Google Scholar
Christensen, D. (2009). “Disagreement as Evidence: The Epistemology of Controversy.” Philosophy Compass, 4: 756–767.Google Scholar
Churchland, P. M. (2007). Neurophilosophy at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Condorcet, M. D. (1785/1994). Essai sur l’application de l’analyse à la probabilité des décisions rendues à la pluralité des voix, trans. by Iain McLean and Fiona Hewitt as Essay on the Application of Analysis to the Probability of Majority Decisions. Paris: De L’Imprimerie Royale.Google Scholar
Constantinescu, C. (2014). “Moral Vagueness: A Dilemma for Non-Naturalism.” In Shafer-Landau, R. (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaethics: Volume 9. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 152–185.Google Scholar
Copp, D. (1997). “The Ring of Gyges: Overridingness and the Unity of Reason.” Social Philosophy and Policy, 14: 86–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crisp, R. (2016). “Rightness, Parsimony, and Consequentialism: A Response to Peterson.” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 19: 39–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dancy, J. (2003). “What Do Reasons Do?” The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 41: 95–113.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1963). “Actions, Reasons, and Causes.” The Journal of Philosophy, 60: 685–700.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
Decock, L. and Douven, I. (2014). “What Is Graded Membership?” Noûs, 48: 653–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Finetti, B. (1989). “Probabilism: A Critical Essay on the Theory of Probability and on the Value of Science.” Erkenntnis, 31: 169–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dougherty, T. (2014). “Vague Value.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 89: 352–372.Google Scholar
Dougherty, T. (2016). “Moral Indeterminacy, Normative Powers and Convention.” Ratio 29:448–465.Google Scholar
Easwaran, K., Fenton-Glynn, L., Hitchcock, C., and Velasco, J. D. (2016). “Updating on the Credences of Others: Disagreement, Agreement, and Synergy.” Philosopher’s Imprint, 16: 1–39.Google Scholar
Eklund, M. (2013). “Metaphysical Vagueness and Metaphysical Indeterminacy.” Metaphysica, 14: 165–179.Google Scholar
Engstrom, S. (1992). “The Concept of the Highest Good in Kant’s Moral Philosophy.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 51: 747–780.Google Scholar
Eriksson, B. (1997). “Utilitarianism for Sinners.” American Philosophical Quarterly, 34: 213–228.Google Scholar
Erk, K. (2012). “Vector Space Models of Word Meaning and Phrase Meaning: A Survey.” Language and Linguistics Compass, 6: 635–653.Google Scholar
Fausto-sterling, A. (2018, October 25). Why Sex Is Not Binary. The New York Times. Retrieved January 13, 2022, from www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/opinion/sex-biology-binary.htmlGoogle Scholar
Feldman, L., Maibach, E. W., Roser-Renouf, C., and Leiserowitz, A. (2012). “Climate on Cable: The Nature and Impact of Global Warming Coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC.” The International Journal of Press/Politics, 17: 3–31.Google Scholar
Foot, P. (2002). Moral Dilemmas and Other Topics in Moral Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gallup Institute. (2020). Moral Issues. Available at: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1681/Moral-Issues.aspx [Accessed 28 September 2020].Google Scholar
Gärdenfors, P. (2000). Conceptual Spaces: The Geometry of Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Genin, K. (2019). “Full and Partial Belief.” In Pettigrew, R. and Weisberg, J. (eds.) ch. 9., The Open Handbook of Formal Epistemology. PhilPapers Foundation, pp. 437–498.Google Scholar
Gertken, J. (2016). “Mixed Feelings About Mixed Solutions.” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 19: 59–69.Google Scholar
Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., and Ditto, P. H. (2011). “Mapping the Moral Domain.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101: 366–385.Google Scholar
Gustafsson, J. E. (2016). “Consequentialism with Wrongness Depending on the Difficulty of Doing Better.” Thought: A Journal of Philosophy, 5: 108–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gustafsson, J. E. and Peterson, M. (2012). “A Computer Simulation of the Argument from Disagreement.” Synthese, 184: 387–405.Google Scholar
Hampton, J. A. (2007). “Typicality, Graded Membership, and Vagueness.” Cognitive Science, 31: 355–384.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. (1958). “Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals.” Harvard Law Review, 71: 593–629.Google Scholar
Hegselmann, R. and Krause, U. (2002). “Opinion Dynamics and Bounded Confidence Models, Analysis, and Simulation.” Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 5(3): 1–33.Google Scholar
Henderson, D., Horgan, T., Potrč, M., and Tierney, H. (2017). “Nonconciliation in Peer Disagreement: Its Phenomenology and Its Rationality.” Grazer Philosophische Studien, 94: 194–225.Google Scholar
Henning, Tim. (2015). “From Choice to Chance? Saving People, Fairness, and Lotteries.” Philosophical Review, 124: 169–206.Google Scholar
Howard-Snyder, F. (2016). “Degrees and Dimensions of Rightness: Reflections on Martin Peterson’s Dimensions of Consequentialism.” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 19: 71–82.Google Scholar
Hurka, T. (2019). “More Seriously Wrong, More Importantly Right.” Journal of the American Philosophical Association, 5: 41–58.Google Scholar
Incurvati, L. (2012). “How to Be a Minimalist about Sets.” Philosophical Studies, 159: 69–87.Google Scholar
Jacobson, S., Myung, E., and Johnson, S. L. (2016). “Open Media or Echo chamber: The Use of Links in Audience Discussions on the Facebook Pages of Partisan News Organizations.” Information, Communication & Society, 19: 875–891.Google Scholar
Jamieson, K. H. and Cappella, J. N. (2008). Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kamm, F. M. (2008). Intricate Ethics: Rights, Responsibilities, and Permissible Harm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1785/1956) Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, trans. Lewis White Beck (1785; repr. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill Library of Liberal Arts, 1956).Google Scholar
Kaposy, C. (2007). “The Real-life Consequences of Being Denied Access to an Abortion.” American Journal of Bioethics, 7: 34–36.Google Scholar
Kearns, S. and Star, D. (2009). “Reasons as Evidence.” Oxford Studies in Metaethics, 4: 215–242.Google Scholar
Kruskal, J. B. and Wish, M. (1978). Multidimensional Scaling. New York, NY: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Lassiter, D. (2017). Graded Modality: Qualitative and Quantitative Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lawlor, R. (2009). Shades of Goodness: Gradability, Demandingness and the Structure of Moral Theories. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Levi, I. (1989). “Rationality, Prediction, and Autonomous Choice.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 19: 339–362.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
Linnebo, Ø. (2008). “Structuralism and the Notion of Dependence.” The Philosophical Quarterly, 58: 59–79.Google Scholar
List, C. (2012). “The Theory of Judgment Aggregation: An Introductory Review.” Synthese, 187: 179–207.Google Scholar
Llewellyn, K. N. (1930). “Some Realism about Realism—Responding to Dean Pound.” Harvard Law Review, 44: 1222.Google Scholar
Lockhart, T. (2000). Moral Uncertainty and Its Consequences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McClennen, E. F. (1990). Rationality and Dynamic Choice: Foundational Explorations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B. and Bennett, K. (2018). “Supervenience.” In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
Messick, S. and Jackson, Douglas N. (1961). “Acquiescence and the Factorial Interpretation of the MMPI.” Psychological Bulletin, 58: 299–304.Google Scholar
Nair, S. (2016). “How Do Reasons Accrue?” In Lord, E. Maguire, , B. (eds.), Weighing Reasons. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 56–73.Google Scholar
Neurath, O. (1921/1973). “Anti-Spengler.” In Neurath, M. and Cohen, R. S. (eds.), Empiricism and Sociology. Vienna Circle Collection, vol. 1. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 158–213.Google Scholar
Norcross, A. (2006). “Reasons without Demands: Rethinking Rightness.” In Dreier, J. (ed.) Contemporary Debates in Moral Theory. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 38–53.Google Scholar
Norcross, A. (2020). Morality by Degrees: Reasons without Demands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ohlsson, R. (1993). “Who Can Accept Moral Dilemmas?” The Journal of Philosophy, 90: 405–415.Google Scholar
Parfit, D. (2017). “Future People, the Non‐Identity Problem, and Person‐Affecting Principles.” Philosophy and Public Affairs, 45: 118–157.Google Scholar
Paul, E. F. and Paul, J. (1979). “Self-Ownership, Abortion and Infanticide.” Journal of Medical Ethics, 5: 133–138.Google Scholar
Peterson, M. (2006). “Review of Jonathan Dancy: Ethics without Principles.” Theoria, 72: 162–165.Google Scholar
Peterson, M. (2013). The Dimensions of Consequentialism: Ethics Equality, and Risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Peterson, M. (2016). “The Dimensions of Consequentialism: Reply to Schmidt, Brown, Howard-Snyder, Crisp, Tanyi and Andric, and Gertken.” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 19: 71–82.Google Scholar
Peterson, M. (2017). The Ethics of Technology: A Geometric Analysis of Five Moral Principles. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, M. (2017). An Introduction to Decision Theory, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Peterson, M. (2018). “The Ethics of Technology: Response to Critics.” Science and Engineering Ethics, 24: 1645–1652.Google Scholar
Peterson, M. (2022a) “Abortion Is Neither Right Nor Wrong.” Journal of Value Inquiry, 56: 219–240.Google Scholar
Peterson, M. (2022b). “Moral Rightness Comes in Degrees.” Journal of the American Philosophical Association, 8: 1–20.Google Scholar
Peterson, M. and Vallentyne, P. (2018). “Self-Prediction and Self-Control.” In Bermudez, J. (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 48–71.Google Scholar
Plato (c 360BC/2017) The Republic, trans. by B. Jowett, published at www.gutenberg.org/Google Scholar
Portmore, D. W. (2013). “Perform Your Best Option.” Journal of Philosophy, 110: 436–459.Google Scholar
Portmore, D. W. (2016). “Review of Martin Peterson’s: The Dimensions of Consequentialism.” Journal of Moral Philosophy, 6: 747–750.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1960). “Translation and Meaning.” In His Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 26–79.Google Scholar
Rabinowicz, W. (1995). “To Have One’s Cake and Eat It, Too: Sequential Choice and Expected-utility Violations.” The Journal of Philosophy, 92: 586–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rinard, S. (2015). “A Decision Theory for Imprecise Credences.” Philosopher’s Imprint, 15: 1–16.Google Scholar
Scanlon, T. M. (2014). Being Realistic about Reasons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schiffer, S. (2000). “Vagueness and Partial Belief.” Philosophical Issues 10: 220–257.Google Scholar
Schiffer, S. (2016). “Philosophical and Jurisprudential Issues of Vagueness.” In Keil, I. G., and Poscher, R. (eds.), Philosophical and Jurisprudential Issues of Vagueness. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 23–48.Google Scholar
Schmidt, T. (2016). “Accounting for Moral Conflicts.” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 19: 9–19.Google Scholar
Singer, P. (1995). How Are We to Live?: Ethics in an Age of Self-Interest. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Soames, S. (2012). “Vagueness and the Law.” In Marmor, A. (ed.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Law, pp. 95–108.Google Scholar
Spohn, W. (1977). “Where Luce and Krantz Do Really Generalize Savage’s Decision Model.” Erkenntnis, 11: 113–134.Google Scholar
Staffel, J. (2019). Unsettled Thoughts: A Theory of Degrees of Rationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tappolet, C. (2013). “Evaluative vs. Deontic Concepts,” in Lafollette, H. (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Ethics. Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 1791–1799.Google Scholar
Temkin, L. S. (1987). “Intransitivity and the Mere Addition Paradox.” Philosophy & Public Affairs, 138–187.Google Scholar
Thomson, J. J. (1971). “A Defense of Abortion.” Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1: 47–66.Google Scholar
Tooley, M. (1972). “Abortion and Infanticide.” Philosophy and Public Affairs, 2: 37–65.Google Scholar
Turney, P. D. and Pantel, P. (2010). “From Frequency to Meaning: Vector Space Models of Semantics.” Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 37: 141–188.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Gati, I. (1978). “Studies of Similarity.” Cognition and Categorization, 1: 79–98.Google Scholar
Verheyen, S., and Peterson, M. (2021). “Can We Use Conceptual Spaces to Model Moral Principles?” Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 12: 373–395.Google Scholar
Wahid, S., Aslam, S., and Minhas, S. (2018) “Ellis-Van Creveld Syndrome in a Neonate.” Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan, 28: S44–S45.Google Scholar
Weintraub, R. (2013). “Can Steadfast Peer Disagreement Be Rational?” Philosophical Quarterly, 63: 740–759.Google Scholar
Williams, J. R. G. (2008). “Ontic Vagueness and Metaphysical Indeterminacy.” Philosophy Compass, 3: 763–788.Google Scholar
Williams, J. R. G. (2014). “Decision-Making Under Indeterminacy.” Philosophers’ Imprint, 14: 1–34.Google Scholar
Winter, M. (2013) “My Abortion,” in The New York Magazine, Nov. 8, 2013 [Last accessed 9/14/2020]Google Scholar