The puzzle of pure moral deference

Philosophical Perspectives 23 (1):321-344 (2009)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Case B. You tell me that eating meat is immoral. Although I believe that, left to my own devices, I would not think this, no matter how long I reflected, I adopt your attitude as my own. It is not that I believe that you are better informed about potentially relevant non-moral facts (e.g., about the conditions under which livestock is kept, or about the typical effects of eliminating meat from one’s diet). On the contrary, I know that I have all of the non-moral information relevant to the issue that you have.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,991

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

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-10-17

Downloads
348 (#60,708)

6 months
30 (#108,740)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Sarah McGrath
Princeton University

Citations of this work

Do your own research!Neil Levy - 2022 - Synthese 200 (5):1-19.
Moral Worth and Moral Knowledge.Paulina Sliwa - 2015 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 93 (2):393-418.
In defense of moral testimony.Paulina Sliwa - 2012 - Philosophical Studies 158 (2):175-195.
Understanding Philosophy.Michael Hannon & James Nguyen - forthcoming - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy.

View all 80 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

The moral problem.Michael Smith - 1994 - Cambridge, Mass., USA: Blackwell.
Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals.Immanuel Kant - 1785 - New York: Oxford University Press. Edited by Thomas E. Hill & Arnulf Zweig.
Moral realism: a defence.Russ Shafer-Landau - 2003 - New York: Oxford University Press.

View all 34 references / Add more references