Advertisement

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

, Volume 21, Issue 5, pp 1091–1103 | Cite as

Reason Holism, Individuation, and Embeddedness

  • Peter Shiu-Hwa TsuEmail author
Article

Abstract

The goal of this paper is to promote what I call ‘the embedded thesis’ as a general constraint on how moral reasons behave. Dancy’s reason holism will be used as a foil to illustrate the thesis. According to Dancy’s reason holism, moral reasons behave in a holistic way; that is, a feature that is a moral reason in one context might not be so in another or might even be an opposite reason. The way a feature manages to switch its reason status is by the help of a so-called enabler/disabler. The enabler in itself is not part of the reason, according to Dancy’s reason holism, for it can be either present or absent while the reason feature is present. To put the idea somewhat differently, Dancy’s reason holism presupposes what I call ‘reason individuation’, the view that features that function as reasons can be individuated from those that function as enablers. Yet, reason individuation cannot hold, or so I will argue, due to what I call ‘the embedded thesis’. According to the embedded thesis, the feature that serves as a moral reason in a context cannot be individuated independently from its embedded context (and thus from its enablers) while still retaining its reason status. If I am right about the embedded thesis, this will take the wind out of the sails of Dancy’s reason holism. More importantly, it will constitute, I argue, a general constraint on how moral reasons behave.

Keywords

Reason holism Individuation Embeddedness Particularism Jonathan Dancy 

References

  1. Audi R (2008) Ethical generality and moral judgment. In: Lance M, Ptrc M, Strahovnik V (eds) Challenging moral particularism. Routledge, New York, pp 31–52Google Scholar
  2. Bader R (2016) Conditions, modifiers, and holism. In: Lord E, McGuire B (eds) Weighing reasons. OUP, Oxford, pp 27–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berker S (2007) Particular reasons. Ethics 118:109–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown C (2007) Two kinds of holism about values. Philos Q 57(228):456–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crisp R (2000) Particularizing Particularism. In: Hooker B, Little M (eds) Moral Particularism. OUP, Oxford, pp 23–47Google Scholar
  6. Crisp R (2007) Ethics without reasons. J Moral Philos 4(1):40–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cullity G (2002) Particularism and moral theory: particularism and presumptive reasons. Aristot Soc Suppl Vol 76(1):169–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dancy J (1993) Moral reason. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Dancy J (2000) The Particularist’s Progress. In: Hooker B, Little M (eds) Moral Particularism. OUP, Oxford, pp 130–156Google Scholar
  10. Dancy J (2003) Are there organic unities. Ethics 113(3):629–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dancy J (2004) Ethics without principles. OUP, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dancy J (2007) Defending the right. J Moral Philos 4(1):85–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dancy J (2008) Moore’s account of vindictive punishment. In: Nuccetelli S, Seay G (eds) Themes from G. E. Moore: New Essays in Epistemology and Ethics, pp 325–342Google Scholar
  14. Darwall S (2013) Morality and principle, Thinking about Reasons: Themes from the Philosophy of Jonathan Dancy. OUP, Oxford, pp 168–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fogal D (2016) Reasons, reason and context. In: Lord E, McGuire B (eds) Weighing reasons. OUP, Oxford, pp 74–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hooker B (2000) Moral particularism: wrong and bad. In: Hooker B, Little M (eds) Moral Particularism. OUP, Oxford, pp 1–22Google Scholar
  17. Lance M, Little M (2008) From particularism to defeasibility in ethics. In: Lance M et al (eds) Challenging moral particularism. Routledge, London, pp 53–74Google Scholar
  18. Little M (2000) Moral generalities revisited. In: Hooker B, Little M (eds) Moral Particularism. OUP, Oxford, pp 276–304Google Scholar
  19. McKeever S, Ridge M (2006) Principled ethics: Generalism as a regulative ideal. OUP, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McNaughton D, Rawling P (2000) “Unprincipled Ethics” in Brad Hooker and Margaret Little (eds.), Moral Particularism, Oxford: OUP, pp. 256–275Google Scholar
  21. Pelligreno G (2006) Particularism and individuation: disappearing, not varying, features. Acta Analytica 21(2):51–70Google Scholar
  22. Raz J (2000) The truth in particularism. In: Hooker B, Little M (eds) Moral Particularism. OUP, Oxford, pp 48–78Google Scholar
  23. Raz J (2006) The trouble with particularism (Dancy's version). Mind 115(457):99–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Scanlon TM (2015) Being realistic about reasons. OUP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Schroeder M (2011) Holism, weight, and undercutting. Noûs 52(2):328–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Swanton C (2001) A virtue ethical account of right action. Ethics 112:32–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Swanton C (2003) Virtue ethics: a pluralistic view. OUP, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thomas A (2007) Practical reasoning and normative relevance. J Moral Philos 4(1):77–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thomas A (2011) Another particularism: reasons, status and defaults. Ethical Theory Moral Pract 14(2):151–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Timmons M (2013) Moral theory. Rowman and Littlefield, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  31. Tsu PS-H (2018) Particularism in Ethics. In: Pritchard D (ed) Oxford Bibliographies Online. OUP, Oxford. http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195396577/obo-9780195396577-0367.xml Google Scholar
  32. Väyrynen P (2006) Moral Generalism: enjoy in moderation. Ethics 116:704–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Väyrynen P (2018) Reasons and Mora principles. In: Star D (ed) Oxford Handbook of Reasons and Normativity. OUP, Oxford, pp 839–861Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyChung Cheng UniversityChia-Yi CountyTaiwan

Personalised recommendations