Moral uncertainty and fetishistic motivation

Philosophical Studies 173 (11):2951-2968 (2016)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Sometimes it’s not certain which of several mutually exclusive moral views is correct. Like almost everyone, I think that there’s some sense in which what one should do depends on which of these theories is correct, plus the way the world is non-morally. But I also think there’s an important sense in which what one should do depends upon the probabilities of each of these views being correct. Call this second claim “moral uncertaintism”. In this paper, I want to address an argument against moral uncertaintism offered in the pages of this journal by Brian Weatherson, and seconded elsewhere by Brian Hedden, the crucial premises of which are: that acting on moral uncertaintist norms necessarily involves motivation by reasons or rightness as such, and that such motivation is bad. I will argue that and are false, and that at any rate, the quality of an agent’s motivation is not pertinent to the truth or falsity of moral uncertaintism in the way that Weatherson’s and Hedden’s arguments require.
ISBN(s)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
SEPMUA-4
Revision history
Archival date: 2016-02-16
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Epistemic Modals.Seth Yalcin - 2007 - Mind 116 (464):983-1026.
The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning.Jonsen, Albert R. & Toulmin, Stephen
Running Risks Morally.Weatherson, Brian
The Moral Problem.Sturgeon, Nicholas L. & Smith, Michael

View all 16 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Moral Uncertainty.Bykvist, Krister

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2016-02-16

Total views
549 ( #4,313 of 39,620 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
75 ( #5,686 of 39,620 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.