Advertisement

Journal of Philosophical Logic

, Volume 39, Issue 3, pp 307–323 | Cite as

The Irreducibility of Personal Obligation

  • Jacob Ross
Article

Abstract

It is argued that claims about personal obligation (of the form “s ought to ϕ”) cannot be reduced to claims about impersonal obligation (of the form “it ought to be the case that p”). The most common attempts at such a reduction are shown to have unacceptable implications in cases involving a plurality of agents. It is then argued that similar problems will face any attempt to reduce personal obligation to impersonal obligation.

Keywords

Personal obligation Impersonal obligation Meinong-Chisholm reduction Ought Deontic paradoxes 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson, A. (1962). Logic, norms and roles. Ratio, 4, 32–49.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Åqvist, L. (1967). Good Samaritans, contrary-to-duty imperatives, and epistemic obligations. Noûs, 1, 361–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Belnap, N., Perloff, M., & Xu, M. (2001). Facing the future: Agents and choices in our indeterminist world. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Broome J (203) Reasoning Unpublished lectures given at Brown University and the University of StockholmGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Danielsson, S. (2000). What shall we do with deontic logic? Theoria, 66, 97–114.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Danielsson, S. (2005). Taking ross’s paradox seriously: a note on the original problems of deontic logic. Theoria, 71, 20–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Casteneda, H. (1981). The paradoxes of deontic logic: The simplest solution to all of them in one fell swoop. In Hilpinen (pp. 37–85).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chisholm, R. (1964). The ethics of requirement. American Philosophical Quarterly, 1, 147–153.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Føllesdal, D., & Hilpinen, R. (1971). Deontic logic: an introduction. In Hilpinen (pp. 1–35).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hansson, B. (1969). An analysis of some deontic logics. Noûs, 3, 373–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hilpinen, R. (2001). Deontic logic. In Goble (pp. 159–182).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Horty, J. (1996). Agency and obligation. Synthese, 108, 269–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Horty, J. (2001). Agency and deontic logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jones, A., & Sergot, M. (1996). A formal characterization of institutionalized power. Journal of the IGPL, 4, 429–445.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jackson, F., & Pargetter, R. (1986). Oughts, options and actualism. The Philosophical Review, 95, 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kanger, S. (1957/1971). New foundations for ethical theory. Reprinted in Hilpinen (pp. 36–58).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Krogh, C., & Herrestad, H. (1996). Getting personal: Some notes on the relationship between personal and impersonal obligation. In Brown & Carmo (pp. 134–153).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lewis, D. (1973). Counterfactuals. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Meinong, A. (1917/1972). On emotional presentation, tr. M. L. S. Kalsi. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Parfit, D. (1999). Experiences, subjects, and conceptual schemes. Philosophical Topics, 26, 217–70.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Paske, G. (1990). Genuine moral dilemmas and the containment of incoherence. Journal of Value Inquiry, 24, 315–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ross, A. (1941). Imperatives and logic. Theoria, 7, 53–71.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ross, J. (2009). Conditional Analyses of Personal Obligation. http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~jacobmro/ppr/conditional-ross.pdf
  24. 24.
    Santos, F., & Carmo, J. (1996). Indirect action, influence and responsibility. In Brown & Carmo (pp. 194–215).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schroeder, M. (2010). Oughts, agents and actions.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Williams, B. (1981). Ought and moral obligation. In his Moral Luck (pp. 114–123). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Williams, B. (1985). Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zimmerman, J. (1996). The concept of moral obligation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of PhilosophyUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations