Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T14:07:19.893Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The guise of the good and the problem of partiality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Allan Hazlett
Allan Hazlett*
Affiliation:
Washington University in Saint Louis, St Louis, USA
*
Allan Hazlett [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

According to the guise of the good thesis, we desire things under the ‘guise of the good.’ Here I sympathetically articulate a generic formulation of the guise of the good thesis, and address a problem for the view, which I call the problem of partiality. The problem is, roughly, that our partial pro-attitudes–for example, our special concern for ourselves–do not correspond to what is absolutely good. I criticize three solutions to the problem, and propose an alternative strategy, on which partial pro-attitudes constitute a species of illusion.

Keywords

Guise of the goodpro-attitudes desirepreferencerepresentationaim of beliefpartialityfitting attitudes
Type
Original Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 49 , Issue 6 , September 2019 , pp. 851 - 872
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Philosophy 2018

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

Adams, R. M. 1976. “Motive Utilitarianism.” Journal of Philosophy 73 (14): 467–481. 10.2307/2025783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anscombe, G. E. M. 1963. Intention. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Altham, J.E.J. 1986. “The Legacy of Emotivism.” In Fact, Science, and Morality: Essays on a.J. Ayer’s Language, Truth, and Logic, edited by Macdonald, G. and Wright, C., 275–288. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bratman, M. 2009a. “Intention, Belief, and Instrumental Rationality.” In Reasons for Action, edited by Sobel, D. and Wall, S., 13–36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511720185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bratman, M. 2009b. “Intention, Belief, Practical, Theoretical.” In Spheres of Reason: New Essays in the Philosophy of Normativity, edited by Robertson, S. (ed.), 31–60. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brentano, F. 1902. The Origin of the Knowledge of Right and Wrong. London: Archibald Constable.Google Scholar
Brink, D. O. 2008. “The Significance of Desire.” Oxford Studies in Metaethics 3: 5–45.Google Scholar
Charles, D. 1982/3. “Rationality and Irrationality.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 83: 191–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D. 1980. Essays on Actions and Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. 1984. Essays on Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dreier, J. 1993. “Structures of Normative Theories.” Monist 76: 22–40. 10.5840/monist19937616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dreier, J. 1996. “Rational Preference: Decision Theory as a Theory of Practical Rationality.” Theory and Decision 40 (3): 249–276. 10.1007/BF00134210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, M. 2010. “A Partisan’s Guide to Socratic Intellectualism.” In Desire, Practical Reason, and the Good, edited by Tenenbaum, S., 6–33. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195382440.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ewing, A. C. 1947. The Definition of Good. New York, NY: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Feldman, S. D., and Hazlett, A. forthcoming. “Ambivalence and the Inconsistency of the Good.”Google Scholar
Foot, P. 1985. “Utilitarianism and the Virtues.” Mind XCIV (374): 196–209. 10.1093/mind/XCIV.374.196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia, J. L. A. 1986. “Evaluator Relativity and the Theory of Value.” Mind XCV (378): 242–245. 10.1093/mind/XCV.378.242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia, J. L. A. 1987. “Goods and Evils.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 47 (3): 385–412. 10.2307/2107596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geach, P. 1956. “Good and Evil.” Analysis 17: 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, A. 2017. “Might Desires Be Beliefs about Normative Reasons for Action? ” In The Nature of Desire, edited by Deonna, J. and Lauria, F., 201–218. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harman, G. 1990. “The Intrinsic Quality of Experience.” Philosophical Perspectives 4: 31–52. 10.2307/2214186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazlett, A. 2013. A Luxury of the Understanding: On the Value of True Belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199674800.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazlett, A. 2014. “Intellectual Loyalty.” International Journal for the Study of Skepticism 6: 326–350. Part of a special issue on Hinge Epistemology edited by Coliva, A. and Moyal-Sharrock, D..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazlett, A. 2017. “On the Special Insult of Refusing Testimony.” Philosophical Explorations 20 (sup1): 37–51. Part of a special issue on False but Useful Beliefs edited by Bortolotti, L. and Sullivan-Bissett, E.. 10.1080/13869795.2017.1287293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hieronymi, P. 2005. “The Wrong Kind of Reason.” Journal of Philosophy 102 (9): 437–457. 10.5840/jphil2005102933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, D. 1975. Enquiries concerning Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/actrade/9780198245353.book.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, D. 1978. A Treatise of Human Nature. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hurka, T. 2003. “Moore in the Middle.” Ethics 113: 599–628. 10.1086/345624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, F. 1985. “Internal Conflicts in Desires and Morals.” American Philosophical Quarterly 22 (2): 105–114.Google Scholar
Jackson, F. 1991. “Decision-Theoretic Consequentialism and the Nearest and Dearest Objection.” Ethics 101 (3): 461–482. 10.1086/293312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, S. 2004. “Friendship and Belief.” Philosophical Papers 33 (3): 329–351. 10.1080/05568640409485146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraut, R. 2011. Against Absolute Goodness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1974. “Radical Interpretation.” Synthese 27: 331–344. As reprinted in D. Lewis, Philosophical Papers I (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 108–118. 10.1007/BF00484599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. 1988. “Desire as Belief.” Mind XCVII (387): 323–332. 10.1093/mind/XCVII.387.323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, A. 1988. “Partisanship.” In Perspectives on Self-Deception, edited by McLaughlin, B. P. and Rorty, A. O., 170–182. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Moss, J. 2010. “Aristotle’s Non-Trivial, Non-Insane View That Everyone Always Desires Things under the Guise of the Good.” In Desire, Practical Reason, and the Good, edited by Tenenbaum, S., 65–81. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nagel, T. 1970. The Possibility of Altruism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nagel, T. 1979. The Limits of Objectivity. The Tanner Lecture on Human Values.Google Scholar
Nagel, T. 1986. The View from Nowhere. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Oddie, G. 2005. Value, Reality, and Desire. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/0199273413.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parfit, D. 1984. Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Peacocke, C. 1983. Sense and Content: Experience, Thought, and Their Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pettit, P. 1985/6. “Social Holism and Moral Theory: A Defence of Bradley’s Thesis.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 86: 173–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettit, P. 1987. “Humeans, Anti-Humeans, and Motivation.” Mind XCVI (384): 530–533. 10.1093/mind/XCVI.384.530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettit, P. 1991. “Decision Theory and Folk Psychology.” In Foundations of Decision Theory: Issues and Advances, edited by Bacharach, M. and Hurley, S., 147–175. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pettit, P., and Brennan, G.. 1986. “Restrictive Consequentialism.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 64 (4): 438–455. 10.1080/00048408612342631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portmore, D. 2005. “Combining Teleological Ethics with Evaluator Relativism: A Promising Result.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 86: 95–113. 10.1111/papq.2005.86.issue-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portmore, D. 2007. “Consequentializing Moral Theories.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 88: 39–73. 10.1111/papq.2007.88.issue-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Railton, P. 1984. “Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 13 (2): 134–171.Google Scholar
Railton, P. 2012. “The Obscure Object, Desire.” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 86 (2): 22–46.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 2002. Engaging Reason: On the Theory of Value and Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/0199248001.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raz, J. 2010. “On the Guise of the Good.” In Desire, Practical Reason, and the Good, edited by Tenenbaum, S., 111–135. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195382440.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. 1982. “Rights and Agency.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 11 (1): 3–39.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1983. “Evaluator Relativity and Consequential Evaluation.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 12 (2): 113–132.Google Scholar
Setiya, K. 2007. Reasons without Rationalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Setiya, K. 2010. “Sympathy for the Devil.” In Desire, Practical Reason, and the Good, edited by Tenenbaum, S., 82–110. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195382440.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scanlon, T. 1998. What We Owe to Each Other. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schafer, K. 2013. “Perception and the Rational Force of Desire.” Journal of Philosophy 110 (5): 258–281. 10.5840/jphil2013110528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, M. 2007. “Teleology, Agent-Relative Value, and ‘Good’.” Ethics 117 (2): 265–95. 10.1086/511662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, M. 2008. “How Does the Good Appear to Us? ” Social Theory and Practice 34 (1): 119–130. 10.5840/soctheorpract20083416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah, N. 2003. “How Truth Governs Belief.” Philosophical Review 112 (4): 447–482. 10.1215/00318108-112-4-447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah, N. 2008. “How Action Governs Intention.” Philosophers Imprint 8 (5): 1–19.Google Scholar
Smith, M. 1993. “Realism.” In A Companion to Ethics, edited by Singer, P., 399–410. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Smith, M. 1994. The Moral Problem. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Smith, M. 2003. “Neutral and Relative Value after Moore.” Ethics 113 (3): 576–598. 10.1086/345626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, M. 2009. “Two Kinds of Consequentialism.” Philosophical Issues 19: 257–272. 10.1111/phis.2009.19.issue-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stampe, D. 1987. “The Authority of Desire.” Philosophical Review 96 (3): 225–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stocker, M. 1979. “Desiring the Bad: An Essay in Moral Psychology.” The Journal of Philosophy 76 (12): 738–753. 10.2307/2025856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stroud, S. 2006. “Epistemic Partiality in Friendship.” Ethics 116: 498–524. 10.1086/500337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tenenbaum, S. 2007. Appearances of the Good: An Essay on the Nature of Practical Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511498855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tenenbaum, S. 2008. “Appearing Good: A Reply to Schroeder.” Social Theory and Practice 34 (1): 131–138. 10.5840/soctheorpract20083417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tenenbaum, S. 2010. “Good and Good for.” In Desire, Practical Reason, and the Good, edited by Tenenbaum, S., 202–233. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195382440.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, J. J. 2008. Normativity. Chicago, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Velleman, D. 1992. “The Guise of the Good.” Noûs 26 (1): 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velleman, J. David 1996. “The Possibility of Practical Reason.” Ethics 106: 694–726. 10.1086/233669CrossRefGoogle Scholar