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...
Κύριος συγγραφέας: | |
---|---|
Τύπος μέσου: | Ηλεκτρονική πηγή Άρθρο |
Γλώσσα: | Αγγλικά |
Έλεγχος διαθεσιμότητας: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
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 |