Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T08:06:13.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Groundwork for the Mechanics of Morals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2020

Avery Kolers Open the ORCID record for Avery Kolers [Opens in a new window]
Avery Kolers*
Affiliation:
Philosophy Department, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ethics is a skill set. But what skill set is it? An answer to this question would help make progress for both theory and moral agency. I argue that moral performance may best be understood on the model of athletic performance; both moral and athletic performance are rule-structured unions of efficiency and inefficiency, enabling us to engage in the wholehearted and autonomous pursuit of goals subject to constraints. By understanding how athletics demands embodied performance, we better understand moral demand and wrongdoing: less moral psychology, more moral kinesiology.

Keywords

Ethicsdemandrulesskillsport
Type
Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 50 , Issue 5 , July 2020 , pp. 636 - 651
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Canadian Journal of Philosophy

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aggerholm, K. 2016. “On Practising in Sport: Towards an Ascetological Understanding of Sport.” Journal of the Philosophy of Sport 43: 350–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Annas, J. 2011. Intelligent Virtue. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199228782.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carbonell, V. 2009. “What Moral Saints Look Like.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 39: 371–98.10.1353/cjp.0.0057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carbonell, V. 2012. “The Ratcheting-Up Effect.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 93: 228–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, C. 2016. “A Three-Pointer: Revisiting Three Crucial Issues in the ‘Tricky Triad’ of Play, Games, and Sport.” In Defining Sport: Conceptions and Borderlines, edited by Klein, S. E., 3–21. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Cooney, N. 2015. How to Be Great at Doing Good. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, R. G. 2013. “Act Utilitarianism.” In The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory. 2nd ed. Edited by LaFollette, H. and Persson, I., 221–37. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gaard, G. 2007. The Nature of Home. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Goodin, R. 1993. “Moral Atrophy in the Welfare State.” Policy Sciences 26: 63–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herman, B. 1993. “Leaving Deontology Behind.” In The Practice of Moral Judgment, 208–42. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Herman, B. 2008. “The Scope of Moral Requirement.” In Moral Literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 203–29.Google Scholar
Hooker, B. 2013. “Rule Consequentialism.” In The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory. 2nd ed., edited by LaFollette, H. and Persson, I., 221–37. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kant, I. 2005. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by Abbott, T. K., edited by Denis, Lara. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
Kant, I. 2017. Metaphysics of Morals. Revised ed. Translated by Gregor, M., edited by Denis, L.. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Klein, S. E., ed. 2016. Defining Sport: Conceptions and Borderlines. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Kolers, A. 2019. “Ludic Constructivism: Or, Individual Life and the Fate of Humankind.” Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 13: 392–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, C. 2009. Self-Constitution: Agency, Identity, and Integrity. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199552795.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López Frías, F. J. 2016. “Broad Internalism and Interpretation: A Plurality of Interpretivist Approaches.” In Defining Sport: Conceptions and Borderlines, edited by Klein, S. E., 22–44. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Meier, K. V. 1988. “Triad Trickery.” Journal of the Philosophy of Sport 15: 11–30.10.1080/00948705.1988.9714458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, C. T. 2019. “Games and the Art of Agency.” Philosophical Review 128: 423–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sloterdijk, P. 2014. You Must Change Your Life. Translated by Hoben, Wieland. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Snow, N. E. 2008. “Virtue and Flourishing.” Journal of Social Philosophy 39: 224–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stroud, S. 2013. “They Can’t Take That Away from Me.” Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics Vol. 3. Edited by Timmons, Mark, 203–34. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Suits, B. 2014. The Grasshopper: Games, Life, and Utopia. 3rd ed. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
Torres, C. 2000. “What Counts as Part of a Game? A Look at Skills.” Journal for the Philosophy of Sport 27: 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Ackeren, M. 2018. “How Morality Becomes Demanding: Cost vs. Difficulty and Restriction.” International Journal of Philosophical Studies 26: 315–34.10.1080/09672559.2018.1489641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, B. 1973. “Critique of Utilitarianism.” In Utilitarianism: For and Against, Smart, J. J. C. and Williams, B. A. O.. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar