Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T13:11:08.084Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Natures of Moral Acts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2019

DAVID KASPAR
DAVID KASPAR*
Affiliation:
ST. JOHN'S [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Normative ethics asks: What makes right acts right? W. D. Ross attempted to answer this question in The Right and the Good (1930). Most theorists have agreed that Ross provided no systematic explanatory answers. Ross's intuitionism lacks any decision procedure, and, as McNaughton (2002: 91) states, it ‘turns out after all to have nothing general to say about the relative stringency of our basic duties’. Here I will show that my own Rossian intuitionism does have a systematic way of explaining what makes right acts right. Deontological theories have struggled to say what internal to acts could make them right. From Price to Ross, the striking but uninformative answer has been the nature of the act. In this paper I will provide a Rossian theory of the moral natures of acts. It contains a set of self-evident principles of moral stringency and other considerations that can assist agents in deciding what prima facie duty overrides what.

Keywords

intuitionismmoral kindprima facie dutyRossstringencyvalue
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the American Philosophical Association , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , Spring 2019 , pp. 117 - 135
Copyright
Copyright © American Philosophical Association 2019 

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.)

Footnotes

I would like to thank attendees of the 2016 Northern New England Philosophical Association Conference in Keene, NH, for their comments on an early draft of this article. A thank you also to Robert Audi for his helpful comments. Lastly, I would like to express my appreciation for the comments of two anonymous referees and the editorial team, for they prompted me to make several improvements to this article.

References

Audi, Robert. (2004) The Good in the Right: A Theory of Intuition and Intrinsic Value. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bales, R. Eugene. (1971) ‘Act-utilitarianism: Account of Right-making Characteristics or Decision-making Procedure?’. American Philosophical Quarterly, 8, 257–65.Google Scholar
Burnor, Richard, and Raley, Yvonne. (2011) Ethical Choices: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy with Cases. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chappell, Timothy. (2009) ‘Ethics beyond Moral Theory’. Philosophical Investigations, 32, 206–43.Google Scholar
Cudworth, Ralph. (1991) ‘A Treatise Concerning Eternal and Immutable Morality (Exc.)’. In Raphael, D. D. (ed.), British Moralists, 1650–1800, vol. 1 (Indianapolis: Hackett), 105–19.Google Scholar
Dancy, Jonathan. (1991) ‘An Ethic of Prima Facie Duties’. In Singer, Peter (ed.), A Companion to Ethics (Oxford: Blackwell), 219–29.Google Scholar
Daniels, Norman. (1979) ‘Wide Reflective Equilibrium and Theory Acceptance in Ethics’. Journal of Philosophy, 76, 256–82.Google Scholar
Huemer, Michael. (2005) Ethical Intuitionism. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Huemer, Michael. (2009) ‘Apology of a Modest Intuitionist’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 78, 222–36.Google Scholar
Hurka, Thomas. (2011) ‘Common Themes from Sidgwick to Ewing’. In Hurka, Thomas (ed.), Underivative Duty: British Moral Philosophers from Sidgwick to Ewing (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 6–25.Google Scholar
Johnson, Oliver A. (1957) ‘Ethical Intuitionism: A Restatement’. Philosophical Quarterly, 7, 193–203.Google Scholar
Kagan, Shelly. (1998) Normative Ethics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. (1993) Critique of Practical Reason, 3d. ed. Translated by Lewis White Beck. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Kaspar, David. (2012) Intuitionism. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
Kaspar, David. (2015a) ‘How We Decide in Moral Situations’. Philosophy, 90, 59–81.Google Scholar
Kaspar, David. (2015b) ‘Explaining Intuitionism’. Reason Papers, 37, 47–66.Google Scholar
Kaspar, David. (2017) ‘Moral Explanation through Moral Kinds’. In Taddio, Luca (ed.), New Perspectives on Realism (Udine: Mimesis International), 215–36.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, Alasdair. (1966) A Short History of Ethics. New York: Touchstone.Google Scholar
McNaughton, David. (2002) ‘An Unconnected Heap of Duties?’. In Stratton-Lake, Philip (ed.), Ethical Intuitionism: Re-evaluations (Oxford: Clarendon Press), 76–91.Google Scholar
Mill, John S. (2002) ‘Utilitarianism’. In Miller, Dale E. (ed.), The Basic Writings of John Stuart Mill (New York: Modern Library), 233–301.Google Scholar
Nell, Onora. (1975) Acting on Principle: An Essay on Kantian Ethics. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Pettit, Philip. (1993) ‘Introduction’. In Philip Pettit (ed.), Consequentialism (Aldershot: Dartmouth Press), xiii–xix.Google Scholar
Price, Richard. (1991) ‘A Review of the Principal Questions in Morals (Exc.)’. In Raphael, D. D. (ed.), British Moralists, 1650–1800, vol. 2 (Indianapolis: Hackett), 131–98.Google Scholar
Prichard, H. A. (1912) ‘Does Moral Philosophy Rest on a Mistake?’. Mind, 21, 21–37.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. (1971) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. (2000) Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy. Edited by Barbara Herman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ross, W. D. (1930) The Right and the Good. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Ross, W. D. (1939) Foundations of Ethics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Shafer-Landau, Russ. (2012) The Fundamentals of Ethics. 2d. ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Timmons, M. (2002) Moral Theory: An Introduction. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar