Advertisement

Case Study: Access and the Shirker Problem

  • Jan Willem WielandEmail author
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Philosophy book series (BRIEFSPHILOSOPH)

Abstract

It is often controversial what conclusion should be drawn from an infinite regress. In this chapter, I will present a case study to illustrate this kind of controversy in some detail: a regress concerning the so-called Access principle, which places an epistemic restriction on our obligations. Restrictions like Access fall prey to the Shirker Problem, namely the problem that shirkers could evade their obligations by evading certain epistemic circumstances. To block this problem, it has been suggested that shirkers have the obligation to learn their obligations. This solution yields a regress, yet it is controversial what the moral of the regress actually is. There will be two, related questions throughout this chapter: first, what possible conclusions can regresses have? And second: how can those conclusions be defended on the basis of a regress, and how might those conclusions be resisted?

Keywords

Regress Access Loophole Obligation Knowledge 

References

  1. Driver, J. 2012. What the objective standard is good for. Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics 2: 28–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dummett, M. 1973. Frege: Philosophy of language. Duckworth: London.Google Scholar
  3. Frege, G. 1918. The thought: A logical inquiry. Trans. A. M. and M. Quinton 1956. Mind 65: 289–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Graham, P. 2010. In defense of objectivism about moral obligation. Ethics 121: 88–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Guerrero, A.A. 2007. Don’t know, don’t kill: Moral ignorance, culpability, and caution. Philosophical Studies 136: 59–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Künne, W. 2003. Conceptions of truth. Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Moore, G.E. 1912. Ethics. ed. Shaw W.H. 2005. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar
  8. Rescher, N. 2010. Infinite regress: The theory and history of a prominent mode of philosophical argumentation. New Brunswick: Transaction.Google Scholar
  9. Sher, G. 2009. Who knew? Responsibility without awareness. Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Sider, T. 1995. Sorensen on unknowable obligations. Utilitas 7: 273–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Smith, H.M. 2010. Subjective rightness. Social Philosophy & Policy 27: 64–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Sorensen, R.A. 1995. Unknowable obligations. Utilitas 7: 247–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Wieland, J.W. 2014. Access and the shirker problem. American Philosophical Quarterly. Google Scholar
  14. Zimmerman, M.J. 2008. Living with uncertainty: The moral significance of ignorance. Cambridge: CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.VU University AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations