Abstract

Why should one be moral? There is a very strong tradition in moral philosophy of attempting to answer this question by trying to provide a rational justification of morality. Rationalist moral theorists interpret this question as a challenge posed by amoralists, agents who lack any moral sentiments, and so who take themselves to have no reason to be moral. Thus, rationalist moral theorists set out to show that, whatever our sentiments, rationality--which is supposed to be essential to all agents--demands that we be moral. Much of moral philosophy has been devoted to the tasks of giving rationalist justifications of morality, and of assessing the success of various attempts to do so. Yet few philosophers explicitly note that the rationalist project presupposes a substantive conception of morality--a conception which abstracts from agents' particular desires and sentiments altogether. And little attention has been paid to the question of whether we ought to accept the rationalist understanding of the 'Why be moral?' question and the conception of morality which goes with it. It is to that question which I turn in my thesis. ;I begin by characterizing rationalist moral theory and the impersonal conception of morality it presupposes. Admittedly, it appears that a rationalist justification would provide a powerful answer to the amoralist's query of why she should be moral. However, I argue that such a justification cannot carry enough force to provide the promised answer to the amoralist. I maintain that the difficulties rationalism encounters in justifying morality point to an alternative paradigm of justification in ethics and a notion of morality which differs from the impersonal one presupposed by rationalism