Resisting buck-passing accounts of prudential value
- Guy Fletcher
- … show all 1 hide
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
This paper aims to cast doubt upon a certain way of analysing prudential value (or good for), namely in the manner of a ‘buck-passing’ analysis. It begins by explaining why we should be interested in analyses of good for and the nature of buck-passing analyses generally (§I). It moves on to considering and rejecting two sets of buck-passing analyses. The first are analyses that are likely to be suggested by those attracted to the idea of analysing good for in a buck-passing fashion (§II). The second are the buck-passing analyses of good for proposed by John Skorupski (§III), Henry Sidgwick (§IV), and Stephen Darwall (§V). Along the way the paper shows that Michael Smith’s and Peter Railton’s analyses of other concepts—analyses that could be (and have been) taken to be analyses of good for—are similarly unsuitable as analyses of it. The paper concludes by suggesting that the fact that none of the buck-passing accounts of good for considered here is satisfactory, coupled with an appreciation of the various problems that a buck-passing analysis of good for would have to avoid, suggests that we should be sceptical about the prospects of finding such an analysis and should look for one of a different type.
- Brentano, F. (1889). The origin of our knowledge of right and wrong.
- Crisp, R. (2006). Reasons and the good. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
- Dancy, J. (2004). Ethics without principles. Oxford: OUP.
- Darwall, S. (2004). Welfare and rational care. Princeton: PUP.
- Darwall, S. (2006a). Reply to Griffin, Raz, and Wolf. Utilitas, 18, 434–444. CrossRef
- Darwall, S. (2006b). Reply to Feldman, Hurka, and Rosati. Philosophical Studies, 130, 637–658. CrossRef
- Ewing, A. C. (1947). The definition of good. London: Routledge.
- Ewing, A. C. (1959). Second thoughts in moral philosophy. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
- Feldman, F. (2004). Pleasure and the good life: Concerning the nature, varieties and plausibility of hedonism. Oxford: OUP.
- Feldman, F. (2006). What is the rational care theory of welfare? Philosophical Studies, 130, 585–601. CrossRef
- Hurka, T. (2006). A Kantian theory of welfare? Philosophical Studies, 130, 603–617. CrossRef
- Kraut, R. (2007). What is good and why: The ethics of well-being. Cambridge, Mass: HUP.
- Moore, G. E. (1903/2000). Principia ethica (Revised ed.). T. Baldwin (Ed.), Cambridge: CUP.
- Parfit, D. (forthcoming). On what matters. Oxford: OUP.
- Railton, P. (2003). Facts and values. In Facts, values and norms (pp. 43–68). Cambridge: CUP.
- Raz, J. (2006). Darwall on rational care. Utilitas, 18, 400–414. CrossRef
- Rosati, C. (1996). Internalism and the good for a person. Ethics, 106, 297–326. CrossRef
- Scanlon, T. M. (1998). What we owe to each other. Mass: HUP.
- Schroeder, M. (2009). Buck-passers’ negative thesis. Philosophical Explorations, 12(3), 341–347. CrossRef
- Shah, N. (2004). Review of Stephen Darwall, Welfare and rational care. The Philosophical Review, 113, 577–582. CrossRef
- Sidgwick, H. (1907/1981). The methods of ethics (7th ed.). Indiana: Hackett.
- Skorupski, J. (2007). Buck-passing about goodness. In T. Rønnow-Rasmussen, B. Peterson, J. Josefsson, D. Egonsson (Eds.), [online resource]: Hommage á Wlodek: Philosophical papers dedicated to Wlodek Rabinowicz. Lund. http://www.fil.lu.se/HommageaWlodek/site/abstra.html.
- Smith, M. (2003). Neutral and relative value after Moore. Ethics, 113, 576–598. CrossRef
- Resisting buck-passing accounts of prudential value
Volume 157, Issue 1 , pp 77-91
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Good for
- Prudential value
- John Skorupski
- Michael Smith
- Peter Railton
- Henry Sidgwick
- Stephen Darwall
- Guy Fletcher (1)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Exeter College, Oxford, UK