Particularism and Default Reasons

This paper addresses a recent suggestion that moral particularists can extend their view to countenance default reasons (at a first stab, reasons that are pro tanto unless undermined) by relying on certain background expectations of normality. I first argue that normality must be understood non-exte...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Väyrynen, Pekka (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: Springer Science + Business Media B. V 2004
In: Ethical theory and moral practice
Year: 2004, Volume: 7, Issue: 1, Pages: 53-79
Further subjects:B default reasons
B moral particularism
B moral generalism
B normality
B Generics
B Moral principles
Online Access: Volltext (JSTOR)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)

MARC

LEADER 00000naa a22000002 4500
001 1785692992
003 DE-627
005 20220112044052.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 220112s2004 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1023/B:ETTA.0000019980.79568.2f  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1785692992 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1785692992 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Väyrynen, Pekka  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Particularism and Default Reasons 
264 1 |c 2004 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a This paper addresses a recent suggestion that moral particularists can extend their view to countenance default reasons (at a first stab, reasons that are pro tanto unless undermined) by relying on certain background expectations of normality. I first argue that normality must be understood non-extensionally. Thus if default reasons rest on normality claims, those claims won't bestow upon default reasons any definite degree of extensional generality. Their generality depends rather on the contingent distributional aspects of the world, which no theory of reasons should purport to settle. Appeals to default reasons cannot therefore uniquely support particularism. But this argument also implies that if moral generalism entailed that moral reasons by necessity have invariant valence (in the natural extensional sense), it would be a non-starter. Since generalism is not a non-starter, my argument forces us to rethink the parameters of the generalism-particularism debate. Here I propose to clarify the debate by focusing on its modal rather than extensional aspects. In closing, I outline the sort of generalism that I think is motivated by my discussion, and then articulate some worries this view raises about the theoretical usefulness of the label ‘default reason’. 
650 4 |a normality 
650 4 |a Moral principles 
650 4 |a moral particularism 
650 4 |a moral generalism 
650 4 |a Generics 
650 4 |a default reasons 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Ethical theory and moral practice  |d Dordrecht [u.a.] : Springer Science + Business Media B.V, 1998  |g 7(2004), 1, Seite 53-79  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)320527093  |w (DE-600)2015306-5  |w (DE-576)104558555  |x 1572-8447  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:7  |g year:2004  |g number:1  |g pages:53-79 
856 |3 Volltext  |u http://www.jstor.org/stable/27504295  |x JSTOR 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ETTA.0000019980.79568.2f  |x Resolving-System  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mteo 
936 u w |d 7  |j 2004  |e 1  |h 53-79 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4033751890 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1785692992 
LOK |0 005 20220112044052 
LOK |0 008 220112||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2021-12-30#2B8C263A3520BDA90FBA67E8E24F53B03FE2450B 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-Tue135  |c DE-627  |d DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-Tue135 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 866   |x JSTOR#http://www.jstor.org/stable/27504295 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixrk  |a zota 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw