Philosophical Studies

, Volume 157, Issue 2, pp 163–175 | Cite as

Internalization and moral demands



How should we assess the burden of moral demands? A predominant assessment is provided by what Murphy calls the baseline of factual status-quo (FSQ): A moral theory is demanding if the level of agents’ well-being is reduced from the time they begin to comply perfectly with the theory. The aims of my paper are threefold. I will first discuss the limits of the FSQ baseline. Second, I suggest a different assessment, which examines moral demands from a whole-life perspective. My view is that even if agents’ compliance with a moral theory will not cause a substantial reduction to their existing level of well-being, the total quality of life that they may obtain from complying with this theory may still be lower than what they could have obtained by following some other moral theories. The third aim of this paper is that, through this investigation, I hope to explicate the relation between agents’ acceptance of a moral theory and the burden of demands that is created by it. I believe that we can achieve a more comprehensive understanding of the nature of moral demands by paying attention to the psychological development of agents as they accept and internalize a moral theory.


The problem of demandingness Factual status-quo baseline Internalization Consequentialism Famine relief 



An earlier version of this paper was presented in 2008 at the Tenth Conference of the International Society for Utilitarian Studies, Kadish Center for Morality, Law and Public Affairs, UC Berkeley. I am grateful to the audience for a helpful discussion, especially to Steve Nathanson. Thanks are due to Roger Lee, Luke Mulhall, Wong Wai-Hung, Joseph Chan, Leonard Kahn and Peter Chau who read and commented on earlier drafts. I would also like to acknowledge Brad Hooker for his valuable advice on the paper throughout the various stages of its development.


  1. Annas, J. (2000). Voices of ancient philosophy: An introductory reader. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bricker, P. (1980). Prudence. The Journal of Philosophy, 77(7), 381–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bykvist, K. (2006). Prudence for changing selves. Utilitas, 18, 264–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cohen, G. A. (1978). Karl Marx’s theory of history. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, G. A. (2000). If you’re an Egalitarian, how come you’re so rich? Journal of Ethics. doi: 10.1023/A:1009836317343.
  6. Cullity, G. (2006). The moral demands of affluence. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Griffin, J. (1986). Well-being: Its meaning, measurement, and moral importance. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  8. Griffin, J. (1996). Value judgement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Herman, B. (2000). Morality and everyday life. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 74, 29–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Horton, K. (2002). The humanitarian case for giving to aid agencies (pp. 124–125). Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Reading University, UK.Google Scholar
  11. Kagan, S. (1989). The limits of morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Kumar, R. (1999). Defending the moral moderate: Contractualism and common sense. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 28(4), 275–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mackie, J. L. (1977). Ethics: Inventing right and wrong. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  14. McMahan, J. (1997). The limits of nationalism. In R. McKim & J. McMahan (Eds.), The morality of nationalism (pp. 107–138). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Miller, R. (2004). Beneficence, duty and distance. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 32(4), 357–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mulgan, T. (2002). The demands of consequentialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Murphy, L. (2000). Moral demands in nonideal theory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Railton, P. (2008). The problem of well-being: Respect, equality, and the self. In ISUX-X, tenth Conference of the international society for utilitarian studies, Kadish Center for Morality, Law and Public Affairs, University of California, Berkeley. Accessed August 30, 2010, from
  19. Sandel, M. J. (1982). Liberalism and the limits of justice. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Scheffler, S. (1992). Human morality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Singer, P. (1972). Famine, affluence and morality. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 1(3), 229–243.Google Scholar
  22. Taylor, C. (1985). Philosophy and the human sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Unger, P. (1996). Living high & letting die: Our illusion of innocence. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Williams, B. (1981). Moral luck. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Williams, B. (1985). Ethics and the limits of philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.General Education Office, Hong Kong Institute of EducationTai PoHong Kong

Personalised recommendations