Moral uncertainty and fetishistic motivation
- 788 Downloads
Sometimes it’s not certain which of several mutually exclusive moral views is correct. Like almost everyone, I think that there’s some sense in which what one should do depends on which of these theories is correct, plus the way the world is non-morally. But I also think there’s an important sense in which what one should do depends upon the probabilities of each of these views being correct. Call this second claim “moral uncertaintism”. In this paper, I want to address an argument against moral uncertaintism offered in the pages of this journal by Brian Weatherson, and seconded elsewhere by Brian Hedden, the crucial premises of which are: (1) that acting on moral uncertaintist norms necessarily involves motivation by reasons or rightness as such, and (2) that such motivation is bad. I will argue that (1) and (2) are false, and that at any rate, the quality of an agent’s motivation is not pertinent to the truth or falsity of moral uncertaintism in the way that Weatherson’s and Hedden’s arguments require.
KeywordsMoral uncertainty Fetishism Moral motivation Brian Weatherson Brian Hedden Michael Smith
This research was funded by a University of Toronto Connaught Junior Researcher Award.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The researcher declares that he has no conflicts of interest.
- Darwall, S. L. (2006). The second-person standpoint: Morality, respect, and accountability. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Harman, E. (2015). The irrelevance of moral uncertainty. In R. Shafer-Landau (Ed.), Oxford studies in metaethics (Vol. X). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Hedden, B. (2015). Does MITE make right: On decision-making under normative uncertainty. In R. Shafer-Landau (Ed.), Oxford studies in metaethics (Vol. XI). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Hudson, J. L. (1989). Subjectivization in ethics. American Philosophical Quarterly, 26(3), 221–229.Google Scholar
- Jonsen, A., & Toulmin, S. (1988). The abuse of casuistry. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Schroeder, T. (2015) Desire. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/desire/. Accessed September 18, 2015.
- Sepielli, A. (2010). ‘Along an imperfectly-lighted path’: Practical rationality and normative uncertainty. New Brunswick: Ph.D. Dissertation. Rutgers University.Google Scholar
- Sepielli, A. (2012). Subjective normativity and action guidance. In M. Timmons (Ed.), Oxford studies in normative ethics (Vol. II). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Sepielli, A. (ms). How moral uncertaintism can be both true and interesting.Google Scholar
- Skyrms, B. (1990). The dynamics of rational deliberation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Smith, M. (1994). The moral problem. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Thomson, J. J. (1990). The realm of rights. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar