Advertisement

Has Smith Solved the Moral Problem?

  • Wylie Breckenridge
  • Daniel Blair CohenEmail author
Article
  • 4 Downloads

Abstract

Michael Smith attempts to solve the moral problem by arguing that our moral beliefs constitute a rational constraint on our desires. In particular, Smith defends the ‘practicality requirement’, which says that rational agents who believe that an action is right must have some desire to perform that action. We clarify and examine Smith’s argument. We argue that, for the argument to be sound, it must make two crucial assumptions about the rational agent in question: (a) that facts about her desires are transparent to her, and (b) that she believes that she is rational. We conclude that if Smith has solved the moral problem then he has done so only for a restricted class of subjects—those who satisfy these two assumptions.

Keywords

Michael Smith The moral problem The incoherence argument Metaethics 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Gensler, H. J. (1985). Ethical consistency principles. The Philosophical Quarterly, 35, 156–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Kernohan, A. (2007). Desiring what is desirable. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 41, 281–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Lyons, M. (2015). Smith’s incoherence argument for moral rationalism. GSTF Journal of General Philosophy (JPhilo), 1, 55–60.Google Scholar
  4. Shafer-Landau, R. (1999). Moral judgement and normative reasons. Analysis, 59, 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Smith, M. (1991). Realism. In P. Singer (Ed.), A Companion to Ethics (pp. 399–410). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Smith, M. (1994). The Moral Problem. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  7. Smith, M. (2001). The incoherence argument: reply to Shafer-Landau. Analysis, 61, 254–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Smith, M. (2004). The structure of orthonomy. In J. Hyman & H. Steward (Eds.), Agency and Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and its Limits. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Charles Sturt UniversityWagga WaggaAustralia

Personalised recommendations