Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

Reasons and Requirements

Benjamin Sachs
Ethical Theory and Moral Practice
Vol. 11, No. 1, Political Ethics and International Order (Feb., 2008), pp. 73-83
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40284219
Page Count: 11
  • Download ($43.95)
  • Cite this Item
Reasons and Requirements
Preview not available

Abstract

In this essay I defend the claim that all reasons can ground final requirements. I begin by establishing a prima facie case for the thesis by noting that on a common-sense understanding of what finality is, it must be the case that all reasons can ground such requirements. I spend the rest of the paper defending the thesis against two recent challenges. The first challenge is found in Joshua Gert's recent book, Brute Rationality. In it he argues that reasons play two logically distinct roles – requiring action and justifying action. He argues, further, that some reasons – 'purely justificatory' reasons - play only the latter role. Jonathan Dancy offers the second challenge in his Ethics Without Principles, where he distinguishes between the 'favoring' and 'ought-making' roles of reasons. While all reasons play the former role, some do not play the latter, and are therefore irrelevant to what one ought to do. My contention is that both Gert and Dancy are going to have trouble accounting for our intuitions in a number of cases.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
[73]
    [73]
  • Thumbnail: Page 
74
    74
  • Thumbnail: Page 
75
    75
  • Thumbnail: Page 
76
    76
  • Thumbnail: Page 
77
    77
  • Thumbnail: Page 
78
    78
  • Thumbnail: Page 
79
    79
  • Thumbnail: Page 
80
    80
  • Thumbnail: Page 
81
    81
  • Thumbnail: Page 
82
    82
  • Thumbnail: Page 
83
    83