Violations of normative invariance: Some thoughts on shifty oughts

Theoria 73 (2):98-120 (2007)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

It seems paradoxical to say that an action's normative status ‐ whether it is right, wrong, or obligatory ‐ depends on whether or not it is performed. In this paper, I shall argue that in itself this dependency is not paradoxical. I shall argue that we should not reject a normative theory just because it implies this kind of dependency. Not all dependencies of this kind are bad, or at least not bad enough to warrant wholesale rejection. Instead, we should reject a theory when this dependency makes it a poor guide to action, in particular, when the dependency makes it impossible for agents to comply with the theory.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,471

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-09-13

Downloads
151 (#126,592)

6 months
18 (#146,648)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Krister Bykvist
Stockholm University

Citations of this work

Population axiology.Hilary Greaves - 2017 - Philosophy Compass 12 (11):e12442.
Does thought imply ought?Krister Bykvist & Anandi Hattiangadi - 2007 - Analysis 67 (4):277–285.
Ethics and the Question of What to Do.Olle Risberg - 2023 - Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 25 (2).
Belief Norms & Blindspots.Thomas Raleigh - 2013 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 51 (2):243-269.

View all 20 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Reasons and Persons.Derek Parfit - 1984 - Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press.
The taming of the true.Neil Tennant - 1997 - New York: Oxford University Press.
Ethics Out of Economics.John Broome - 1999 - New York: Cambridge University Press.

View all 18 references / Add more references