Advertisement

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 239–257 | Cite as

Subjective Reasons

  • Eric Vogelstein
Article

Abstract

In recent years, the notion of a reason has come to occupy a central place in both metaethics and normative theory more broadly. Indeed, many philosophers have come to view reasons as providing the basis of normativity itself . The common conception is that reasons are facts that count in favor of some act or attitude. More recently, philosophers have begun to appreciate a distinction between objective and subjective reasons, where (roughly) objective reasons are determined by the facts, while subjective reasons are determined by one's beliefs. My goal in this paper is to offer a plausible theory of subjective reasons. Although much attention has been focused on theories of objective reasons, very little has been offered in the literature regarding what sort of account of subjective reasons we should adopt; and what has been offered is rather perfunctory, and requires filling-out. Taking what has been said thus far as a starting point, I will consider several putative theories of subjective reasons, offering objections and amendments along the way, will settle on what I take to be a highly plausible account, and will defend that account against objections.

Keywords

Reasons Subjective reasons Normativity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Jonathan Dancy, Mark Schroeder, David Sosa, and two anonymous referees for Ethical Theory and Moral Practice for very helpful discussion and/or comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

References

  1. Cullity G, Gaut B (1997) Ethics and Practical Reason. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Dancy J (2004) Ethics Without Principles. Clarendon, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dummett M (2006) Thought and Reality. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Frankish K (2009) Partial Belief and Flat-Out Belief. In: Huber F and Schmidt-Petri C (eds) Degrees of Belief. Springer, Synthese Library, pp 75–93Google Scholar
  5. Frankish K (2004) Mind and Supermind. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Frege G (1918/1988) Thoughts. In: Salmon N, Soames S (eds) Propositions and Attitudes. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 33–55Google Scholar
  7. Hurley S (1989) Natural Reasons. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Joyce R (2001) The Myth of Morality. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lewis D (1973) Counterfactuals. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Parfit D (2011) On What Matters. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Raz J (1999) Explaining Normativity: On Rationality and the Justification of Reason. Ratio 12(4):354–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Raz J (2009) Reasons: Practical and Adaptive. In: Sobel D, Wall W (eds) Reasons for Action. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Schroeder M (2007) Slaves of the Passions. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Schroeder M (2008) Having Reasons. Philos Stud 139(1):57–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Schroeder M (2009a) Means-End Coherence, Stringency, and Subjective Reasons. Philos Stud 143(2):223–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schroeder M (2009b) Buck-Passers’ Negative Thesis. Philos Explor 12(3):341–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sinnott-Armstrong W (1984) ‘Ought’ Conversationally Implies ‘Can’. Philos Rev 93(2):249–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Strandberg C (2008) Particularism and Supervenience. In: Shafer-Landau R (ed) Oxford Studies in Metaethics, Vol. 3. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 249–60Google Scholar
  19. Way J (2009) Two Accounts of the Normativity of Rationality. J Ethics Soc Philos http://jesp.org/articles/download/TwoAccountsOfTheNormativityOfRationality.pdf
  20. Zangwill N (2008) Moral Dependence. In: Shafer-Landau R (ed) Oxford Studies in Metaethics, vol 3. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 109–27Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Humanities and Social SciencesJefferson College of Health SciencesRoanokeUSA

Personalised recommendations