Advertisement

Philosophia

, Volume 38, Issue 2, pp 405–415 | Cite as

Motive and Right Action

  • Liezl van ZylEmail author
Article

Abstract

Some philosophers believe that a change in motive alone is sometimes sufficient to bring about a change in the deontic status (rightness or wrongness) of an action. I refer to this position as ‘weak motivism’, and distinguish it from ‘strong’ and ‘partial motivism’. I examine a number of cases where our intuitive judgements appear to support the weak motivist’s thesis, and argue that in each case an alternative explanation can be given for why a change in motive brings about (or, in some cases, appears to bring about) a change in deontic status.

Keywords

Motive Motivism Right action Permissibility Good action Virtue ethics 

References

  1. Abelard, P. (1971). Ethics. D. E. Luscombe (Ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, R. M. (1976). Motive utilitarianism. Journal of Philosophy, 73, 467–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carritt, E. F. (1947). Ethical and Political Thinking. Oxford: Oxford University.Google Scholar
  4. Garcia, J. L. A. (1992). The right and the good. Philosophia, 21(3–4), 235–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hughes, G. E. (1944). Motive and duty. Mind, 53(212), 314–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hursthouse, R. (1999). On Virtue Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University.Google Scholar
  7. Johnson, O. A. (1953). Rightness, moral obligation, and goodness. Journal of Philosophy, 50(20), 597–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Johnson, O. A. (1969). Rightness and Goodness. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  9. Johnson, R. N. (2008). Was Kant a virtue ethicist? In M. Betzler (Ed.), Kant’s Ethics of Virtue (pp. 61–76). Berlin: DeGruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kant, I. (1964). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. H.J. Paton (Trans.), New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  11. Louden, R. B. (1986). Kant’s virtue ethics. Philosophy, 61, 473–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mill, J.S. (1979). Utilitarianism. G. Sher (Ed.), Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
  13. O’Neill, O. (1983). Kant after virtue. Inquiry, 26(44), 387–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  15. Prichard, H. A. (1912). Does moral philosophy rest on a mistake? Mind, 21, 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ross, W. D. (1930). The Right and the Good. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  17. Slote, M. (2001). Morals From Motives. Oxford: Oxford University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sverdlik, S. (1996). Motive and rightness. Ethics, 106, 327–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tännsjö, T. (1995). Blameless wrongdoing. Ethics, 106, 120–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and Religious StudiesUniversity of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations