The Deontic Primacy of Actions?

Journal of Philosophy 120 (10):521-549 (2023)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Why ought we to perform the actions that we ought to perform? We can categorize the various answers to this question depending on whether they hold that the oughts governing actions are explained by the oughts governing non-actions. In this essay, I show how a handful of plausible claims from normative ethics, moral psychology, and the philosophy of action entail the conclusion that what an agent ought to do is explained by the attitudes she ought to have.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,932

External links

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

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Skepticism about Ought Simpliciter.Derek Clayton Baker - 2018 - Oxford Studies in Metaethics 13.
‘Ought’, ‘Can’, and Practical Reasons.Clayton Littlejohn - 2009 - American Philosophical Quarterly 46 (4):363-73.
Duties Beyond The Call Of Duty.Heidi Hurd - 1998 - Jahrbuch für Recht Und Ethik 6.
Strategic Oughts.John F. Horty - 2001 - In John Horty (ed.), Agency and deontic logic. New York: Oxford University Press.
What We Ought and What We Can.Alex King - 2019 - New York, NY, USA: Routledge.
Saints and Heroes.J. O. Urmson - 2023 - In David Heyd (ed.), Handbook of Supererogation. Springer Nature Singapore. pp. 17-27.

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-09-28

Downloads
166 (#117,187)

6 months
57 (#93,694)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Andrew T. Forcehimes
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references