Skip to main content

Ethical Reasons and Political Commitments

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

Political commitments to resist oppression play a central role in the moral lives of many people. Such commitments are also a source of ethical reasons. They influence and organize ethical beliefs, emotions and reasons in an ongoing way. Political commitments to address oppression often contain a concern for the dignity and well-being of others and the objects of political commitments often have value, according to ideal moral theories, such as Kantian and utilitarian theory. However, ideal moral theories do not fully explain the ethical reasons political commitments engender. First, ideal moral theories do not explain the normative priority that agents give to politically committed ethical reasons. Their profound effect on a politically committed agent’s ethical deliberation and choice and the precedence they are given over other ends cannot be wholly understood through the moral obligations within ideal theories. Second, although politically committed reasons are valuable in ideal theory for the benefits they bring to others, they are not fungible with other reasons ideal theory would regard as having equal ethical value. A person might substitute another beneficial humanitarian aim for that to which she is politically committed and nevertheless regard herself as having done a morally wrong thing for failing or betraying her commitment. Politically committed ethical reasons are also motivated and informed by the social location of agents and their relationship to structures of oppression. Although there are universal ethical reasons to oppose oppression, this means that some of a person’s actual ethical reasons will be irreducibly particular.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Dancy, J. 1993. Moral Reasons (Oxford: Blackwell).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dancy, J. 2004. Ethics Without Principles (Oxford: Clarendon Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Henze, B.R. 2000. ‘Who Says Who Says: The Epistemological Grounds for Agency in Liberatory Political Projects.’ In P.M.L. Moya and M.R. Hames-Garcia (eds.), Reclaiming Identity: Realist Theory and the Predicament of Postmodernism (Berkeley: University of California Press), pp. 229–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korsgaard, C. 1996. The Sources of Normativity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, C. 2000. ‘Ideal Theory as Ideology.’ In P. DesAutels and M.U. Walker (eds.), Moral Psychology: Feminist Ethics and Social Theory (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield), pp. 163–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohanty, S. 2000. ‘The Epistemic Status of Cultural Identity: On Beloved and the Postcolonial Condition.’ In P.M.L. Moya and M.R. Hames-Garcia (eds.), Reclaiming Identity: Realist Theory and the Predicament of Postmodernism (Berkeley: University of California Press), pp. 29–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, T. 1979. The Possibility of Altruism (Princeton: Princeton University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Politkovskay, A. 2007. Putin’s Russia (New York: Holt Paperbacks).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stocker, M. 1976. ‘The Schizophrenia of Modern Ethical Theories.’ Journal of Philosophy, 73 (14), 453–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urban-Walker, M. 2005. Moral Contexts (New York: Rowman and Littlefield).

    Google Scholar 

  • Urban-Walker, M. 2007. Moral Understandings: A Feminist Study in Ethics, Second Edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, B. 1985. Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, B., and J.J.C. Smart. 1973. Utilitarianism, For and Against (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, I. 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference (Princeton: Princeton University Press).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Daniel Fireside and Lisa Tessman for helpful comments on this paper as well as Lawrence Blum, Janet Farrell Smith, Sally Haslanger, Rae Langton, Nancy Bauer, Catherine McKeen and other members of MIT’s Working Group on Gender and Philosophy.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa Rivera .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Rivera, L. (2009). Ethical Reasons and Political Commitments. In: Tessman, L. (eds) Feminist Ethics and Social and Political Philosophy: Theorizing the Non-Ideal. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6841-6_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics