Wrongness and Reasons

Is the wrongness of an action a reason not to perform it? Of course it is, you may answer. That an action is wrong both explains and justifies not doing it. Yet, there are doubts. Thinking that wrongness is a reason is confused, so an argument by Jonathan Dancy. There can’t be such a reason if ‘ϕ-in...

Πλήρης περιγραφή

Αποθηκεύτηκε σε:  
Λεπτομέρειες βιβλιογραφικής εγγραφής
Κύριος συγγραφέας: Heuer, Ulrike (Συγγραφέας)
Τύπος μέσου: Ηλεκτρονική πηγή Άρθρο
Γλώσσα:Αγγλικά
Έλεγχος διαθεσιμότητας: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Φόρτωση...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Έκδοση: Springer Science + Business Media B. V 2010
Στο/Στη: Ethical theory and moral practice
Έτος: 2010, Τόμος: 13, Τεύχος: 2, Σελίδες: 137-152
Άλλες λέξεις-κλειδιά:B Practical reasons
B Jonathan Dancy
B Buck-passing account of value
B Deontic buck-passing
B Wrongness
Διαθέσιμο Online: Volltext (JSTOR)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)

MARC

LEADER 00000naa a22000002 4500
001 178569555X
003 DE-627
005 20220112044101.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 220112s2010 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1007/s10677-009-9202-6  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)178569555X 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP178569555X 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Heuer, Ulrike  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Wrongness and Reasons 
264 1 |c 2010 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a Is the wrongness of an action a reason not to perform it? Of course it is, you may answer. That an action is wrong both explains and justifies not doing it. Yet, there are doubts. Thinking that wrongness is a reason is confused, so an argument by Jonathan Dancy. There can’t be such a reason if ‘ϕ-ing is wrong’ is verdictive, and an all things considered judgment about what (not) to do in a certain situation. Such judgments are based on all the relevant reasons for and against ϕ-ing. If that ϕ-ing is wrong, while being an all things considered verdict, would itself be a reason, it would upset the balance of reasons: it would be a further reason which has not yet been considered in reaching the verdict. Hence, the judgment wasn’t ‘all things considered' after all. I show that the argument against wrongness being a reason is unsuccessful, because its main assumption is false. Is main assumption is that a consideration which necessarily does not affect the balance of reasons is not a reason. I also argue that there can be no deontic buck-passing account. 
650 4 |a Jonathan Dancy 
650 4 |a Buck-passing account of value 
650 4 |a Wrongness 
650 4 |a Practical reasons 
650 4 |a Deontic buck-passing 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Ethical theory and moral practice  |d Dordrecht [u.a.] : Springer Science + Business Media B.V, 1998  |g 13(2010), 2, Seite 137-152  |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:13  |g year:2010  |g number:2  |g pages:137-152 
856 |3 Volltext  |u http://www.jstor.org/stable/40602551  |x JSTOR 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-009-9202-6  |x Resolving-System  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mteo 
936 u w |d 13  |j 2010  |e 2  |h 137-152 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
ITA |a 1  |t 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4033754458 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 178569555X 
LOK |0 005 20220112044101 
LOK |0 008 220112||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2021-12-30#345CB9750F61D112EC070CE0A823865B85EA8B74 
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/40602551 
LOK |0 935   |a ixzs  |a ixrk  |a zota 
ORI |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw