Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 369–388 | Cite as

Are Moral Reasons Morally Overriding?

Article

Abstract

In this paper, I argue that those moral theorists who wish to accommodate agent-centered options and supererogatory acts must accept both that the reason an agent has to promote her own interests is a nonmoral reason and that this nonmoral reason can prevent the moral reason she has to sacrifice those interests for the sake of doing more to promote the interests of others from generating a moral requirement to do so. These theorists must, then, deny that moral reasons morally override nonmoral reasons, such that even the weakest moral reason trumps the strongest nonmoral reason in the determination of an act’s moral status (e.g., morally permissible or impermissible). If this is right, then it seems that these theorists have their work cut out for them. It will not be enough for them to provide a criterion of rightness that accommodates agent-centered options and supererogatory acts, for, in doing so, they incur a debt. As I will show, in accommodating agent-centered options, they commit themselves to the view that moral reasons are not morally overriding, and so they owe us an account of how both moral reasons and nonmoral reasons come together to determine an act’s moral status.

Keywords

Agent-centered options Imperfect reasons Moral reasons Morality Nonmoral reasons Overridingness Rational options Rationality Supererogation 

References

  1. Bratman ME (1994) Kagan on ‘The appeal to cost’. Ethics 104:325–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Byron M (2005, April) Alternative consequentialisms. (Paper presented at Lingnan University, Hong Kong)Google Scholar
  3. Chang R (2002) The possibility of parity. Ethics 112:659–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chang R (2004) Putting together morality and well-being. In: Baumann P, Betzler M (eds) Practical conflicts: new philosophical essays. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 118–158Google Scholar
  5. Dreier J (2004) Why ethical satisficing makes sense and rational satisficing doesn’t. In: Byron M (ed) Satisficing and maximizing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 131–154Google Scholar
  6. Gert J (2003) Requiring and justifying: two dimensions of normative strength. Erkenntnis 59:5–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gert J (2004) Brute rationality: normativity and human action. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Gert J (2007) Normative strength and the balance of reasons. Philos Rev 116:533–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gert J (2008) Michael Smith and the rationality of immoral action. J Ethics 12:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hardwood S (1998) Eleven objections to utilitarianism. In: Pojman L (ed) Moral philosophy: a reader. Hackett Publishing, Indianapolis, pp 179–192Google Scholar
  11. Kagan S (1989) The limits of morality. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Kagan S (1991) Replies to my critics. Philos Phenomenol Res 54:919–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kagan S (1994) Defending options. Ethics 104:348–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kawall J (2003) Self-regarding supererogatory actions. J Soc Philos 34:487–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McLeod O (2001) Just plain ‘ought’. J Ethics 5:269–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Parfit D (2008) Climbing the mountain. Retrieved January 29, 2008, from http://individual.utoronto.ca/stafforini/parfit/parfit_–_climbing_the_mountain.pdf
  17. Portmore DW (2003) Position-relative consequentialism, agent-centered options, and supererogation. Ethics 113:303–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Portmore DW (2007) Consequentializing moral theories. Pac Philos Q 88:39–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Portmore DW (2008a) Imperfect reasons. Retrieved January 24, 2008, from http://www.public.asu.edu/~dportmor/Imperfect_Reasons_and_Rational_Options.pdf
  20. DW (2008b) Dual-ranking act-consequentialism. Philosophical Studies. DOI 10.1007/s11098-006-9059-7 (in press)
  21. Postow B (2005) Supererogation again. J Value Inq 39:245–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Raz J (1999) Engaging reason. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  23. Sidgwick HE (1907) The method of ethics. Macmillan and Company, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Slote M (1991) Shelly Kagan’s the limits of morality. Philos Phenomenol Res 54:915–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sumner LW (1996) Welfare, happiness, and ethics. Oxford University, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Stroud S (1998) Moral overridingness and moral theory. Pac Philos Q 79:170–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Taurek J (1977) Should the numbers count? Philos Public Aff 6:293–316Google Scholar
  28. Vessel J-P (2008, March) Supererogation for utilitarianism. (Paper presented at the Pacific Division Meeting of the American Philosophical Association, Pasadena, CA)Google Scholar
  29. Zimmerman MJ (1993) Supererogation and doing the best one can. Am Philos Q 30:373–80Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations