The wrong answer to an improper question?

Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Supplementary Volume 33:pp. 97-130 (2010)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

A philosopher who asks “Why be moral?” is asking a theoretical question about the force of moral reasons or about the normative status of morality. Two questions need to be distinguished. First, assuming that there is a morally preferred way to live or to be, is there any (further) reason to be this way or to act this way? Second, if moral considerations are a source of reasons, why is this, and what is the significance of these reasons? This question asks for a ‘grounding’ of morality. The paper mainly addresses the second of these questions. After briefly discussing H.A. Prichard's views, I I consider attempts to answer the question by ‘reducing’ morality to practical reason and I consider T.M. Scanlon’s approach. I conclude by offering my own account.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-03-03

Downloads
876 (#16,969)

6 months
129 (#30,199)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

David Copp
University of California, Davis

References found in this work

Moral saints.Susan Wolf - 1982 - Journal of Philosophy 79 (8):419-439.
Contractualism and utilitarianism.Thomas M. Scanlon - 1982 - In Amartya Kumar Sen & Bernard Arthur Owen Williams (eds.), Utilitarianism and Beyond. Cambridge University Press. pp. 103--128.
The Fragmentation of Value.Thomas Nagel - 1979 - In Mortal questions. New York: Cambridge University Press.

View all 13 references / Add more references