Philosophical Studies

, Volume 167, Issue 1, pp 141–163

Running risks morally


DOI: 10.1007/s11098-013-0227-2

Cite this article as:
Weatherson, B. Philos Stud (2014) 167: 141. doi:10.1007/s11098-013-0227-2


I defend normative externalism from the objection that it cannot account for the wrongfulness of moral recklessness. The defence is fairly simple—there is no wrong of moral recklessness. There is an intuitive argument by analogy that there should be a wrong of moral recklessness, and the bulk of the paper consists of a response to this analogy. A central part of my response is that if people were motivated to avoid moral recklessness, they would have to have an unpleasant sort of motivation, what Michael Smith calls “moral fetishism”.


Normative externalism Moral recklessness Moral uncertainty 

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MichiganMichiganUSA

Personalised recommendations