I argue that the three drugs example makes trouble for the role Smith gives to being fully rational in his solution to the moral problem, given his understanding of what it takes to be fully rational. I conclude by suggesting he might have drawn on a different understanding of what it takes to be fully rational.

This paper examines the apparent tension in Michael Smith’s The Moral Problem between his commitment to convergence in ideal desires and his acceptance of agentrelative reasons, particularly those grounded in first-personal perspectives like the parent-child relationship. While Smith maintains that ideal desires are agent-invariant and converge on what is universally desirable, he also endorses agent-relative reasons that imply agent-centered normative commitments. I argue that resolving this tension requires rethinking convergence. Specifically, I propose extending the first-personal („de se“) nature of agent-relative (...) reasons to the objects of convergence, which I term „de se aims.“ By recognizing these aims as value bearers, we can reconcile agentrelativity with the universality of desirability, preserving Smith’s broader metaethical commitments. The proposal avoids the pitfalls of agent-relative value theories and illuminates the role of perspective-dependent aims in systematic justification. (shrink)

When Michael Smith published The Moral Problem, he advocated only Weak Moral Rationalism: the view that moral requirements always provide us with reasons that are relevant to the rationality of our action. But in the intervening years he has changed his position. He now holds Strong Moral Rationalism: the view that moral requirements are all-things-considered rational requirements. In this paper I argue that his change in view was motivated by two things. The first is his correct view that acting as (...) one is morally required to act is never irrational. The second is what David Copp has called The Unitary View of Reasons: the idea that there are both moral reasons for action, and non-moral ones, and both sorts count as reasons that determine what is rational to do. This combination of views pushes Smith to hold that an act counts as morally required just in case the moral reasons that favor it outweigh all other reasons, both moral and non-moral. But, I argue, there is an attractive position between Weak and Strong Moral Rationalism, which I call Moral Permissibilism. On such a view, moral requirements, while not always rational requirements (as against Strong Moral Rationalism), are always rationally permissible (as against Moral Anti-Rationalism). In order to advocate this common-sensical position, however, one must abandon the Unitary View of Reasons, and recognize that reasons of different kinds contribute to different kinds of normative verdicts. (shrink)

The moral problem, as articulated by Smith, arises out of the attempt to introduce the experimental method of reasoning into moral subjects, developed by Hume. This paper returns to Locke’s earlier attempt to provide an empirically adequate account of morality and the debate his attempt generated. It argues that the seeds of a more adequate, naturalistic account of the metaphysics and epistemology of morals than that developed by either Locke or Hume can already be found in aspects of Locke’s Essay (...) and in the defence of his views published by Catharine Trotter Cockburn. Locke and Cockburn find a natural, intrinsically moral, human disposition in our tendency to judge the moral good or evil of persons or actions in the light of their conformity with a moral law. It is constitutive of our nature as social beings that we are endowed ‘with a moral sense or conscience, that approves of virtuous actions, and disapproves the contrary.’ Moral laws are those prohibitions and obligations that benefit others and society as a whole. Thus, the question of natural, moral motivation is seen to be independent of the question of the objective grounds of moral truth. In virtue of our nature as social beings we are motivated to do what is approved of by other members of our society. Whether what is approved of by a society genuinely fosters the welfare of its members is an independent, a posteriori question that can only be answered through reasoned, empirically informed debate. (shrink)

The moral problem presented by Michael Smith in his seminal book with the same name consists of three claims that are intuitively plausible when considered separately, but seem incompatible when combined: moral judgments express beliefs about objective moral facts, moral judgments are practical in being motivational, and beliefs are unable to motivate by themselves. An essential aspect of Smith’s solution to the moral problem is the contention that moral judgments are both motivating for rational agents and objective. In this paper, (...) I take a close look at Smith’s arguments by considering his characterizations of rationality understood as coherence between attitudes. It is suggested that on this understanding of rationality and coherence, it has not been clearly shown that moral judgments are both practical and objective. (shrink)

In The Moral Problem, Smith defended an analysis of moral judgments based on a number of platitudes about morality. The platitudes are supposed to constitute conceptual constraints which an analysis of moral terms must capture “on pain of not being an analysis of moral terms at all”. This paper discusses this philosophical methodology in light of the fact that the propositions identified as platitudes are not obvious truths – they are propositions we can be uncertain about. This, we argue, is (...) a kind of fundamental philosophical uncertainty, and we develop an account of fundamental uncertainty (for both philosophical and other issues). The key to understand such uncertainty, on our view, is conceptual opacity – i.e., that the content and reference of concepts is not necessarily transparent to competent concept users. We argue that Smith’s own view of conceptual analysis in TMP provides one plausible explanation of fundamental uncertainty. However, we also argue that another potential explanation is conceptual indeterminacy. If some fundamental philosophical uncertainties are best explained in this way, the implication is that there is no determinately correct analysis of the target terms and concepts. (shrink)