Philosophical Studies

, Volume 157, Issue 1, pp 77–91 | Cite as

Resisting buck-passing accounts of prudential value

Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Buck-passing Good Good for Prudential value John Skorupski Michael Smith Peter Railton Henry Sidgwick Stephen Darwall 

References

  1. Brentano, F. (1889). The origin of our knowledge of right and wrong.Google Scholar
  2. Crisp, R. (2006). Reasons and the good. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  3. Dancy, J. (2004). Ethics without principles. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  4. Darwall, S. (2004). Welfare and rational care. Princeton: PUP.Google Scholar
  5. Darwall, S. (2006a). Reply to Griffin, Raz, and Wolf. Utilitas, 18, 434–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Darwall, S. (2006b). Reply to Feldman, Hurka, and Rosati. Philosophical Studies, 130, 637–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ewing, A. C. (1947). The definition of good. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Ewing, A. C. (1959). Second thoughts in moral philosophy. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  9. Feldman, F. (2004). Pleasure and the good life: Concerning the nature, varieties and plausibility of hedonism. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  10. Feldman, F. (2006). What is the rational care theory of welfare? Philosophical Studies, 130, 585–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hurka, T. (2006). A Kantian theory of welfare? Philosophical Studies, 130, 603–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kraut, R. (2007). What is good and why: The ethics of well-being. Cambridge, Mass: HUP.Google Scholar
  13. Moore, G. E. (1903/2000). Principia ethica (Revised ed.). T. Baldwin (Ed.), Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  14. Parfit, D. (forthcoming). On what matters. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  15. Railton, P. (2003). Facts and values. In Facts, values and norms (pp. 43–68). Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  16. Raz, J. (2006). Darwall on rational care. Utilitas, 18, 400–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rosati, C. (1996). Internalism and the good for a person. Ethics, 106, 297–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Scanlon, T. M. (1998). What we owe to each other. Mass: HUP.Google Scholar
  19. Schroeder, M. (2009). Buck-passers’ negative thesis. Philosophical Explorations, 12(3), 341–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Shah, N. (2004). Review of Stephen Darwall, Welfare and rational care. The Philosophical Review, 113, 577–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sidgwick, H. (1907/1981). The methods of ethics (7th ed.). Indiana: Hackett.Google Scholar
  22. 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.
  23. Smith, M. (2003). Neutral and relative value after Moore. Ethics, 113, 576–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Exeter CollegeOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations