Philosophical Studies

, 154:451 | Cite as

“Ought”, reasons, and vice: a comment on Judith Jarvis Thomson’s Normativity

Article
  • 183 Downloads

Notes

Acknowledgments

I received very helpful feedback on earlier versions of this paper from Niko Kolodny.

References

  1. Foot, P. (2001). Natural goodness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Harman, G. (1973). Review of the significance of sense. Meaning, modality, and morality. The Philosophical Review, 82, 235–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Raz, J. (1999). Explaining normativity: On rationality and the justification of reason. In Engaging reason: On the theory of value and action (pp. 67–89). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Scanlon, T. M. (2008). Moral dimensions. Permissibility, meaning, blame (pp. 47–52). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Thompson, M. (2008). Life and action. Elementary structures of practice and practical thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Thomson, J. J. (1990). The realm of rights. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Thomson, J. J. (2003). Goodness and advice (pp. 74–80). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Thomson, J. J. (2008). Normativity. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
  9. Wedgwood, R. (2006). The meaning of ‘ought’. Oxford Studies in Metaethics I, 127–160.Google Scholar
  10. Williams, B. (1995). Replies. In J. Altham & R. Harrison (Eds.), World, mind and ethics. Essays on the ethical philosophy of Bernard Williams (pp. 185–224). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations