Moral Hedging and Responding to Reasons

Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 100 (3):765-789 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this paper, I argue that the fetishism objection to moral hedging fails. The objection rests on a reasons-responsiveness account of moral worth, according to which an action has moral worth only if the agent is responsive to moral reasons. However, by adopting a plausible theory of non-ideal moral reasons, one can endorse a reasons-responsiveness account of moral worth while maintaining that moral hedging is sometimes an appropriate response to moral uncertainty. Thus, the theory of moral worth upon which the fetishism objection relies does not, in fact, support that objection.

Author's Profile

Amelia Hicks
Kansas State University

Analytics

Added to PP
2019-02-03

Downloads
588 (#14,315)

6 months
61 (#19,729)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?