Is "Why Be Moral?" A Pseudo-Question?: Hospers and Thornton on the Amoralist's Challenge

Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 87 (4):549-66 (2006)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Many arguments have been advanced for the view that "Why be moral?" is a pseudo-question. In this paper I address one of the most widely known and influential of them, one that comes from John Hospers and J. C. Thornton. I do so partly because, strangely, an important phase of that argument has escaped close attention. It warrants such attention because, firstly, not only is it important to the argument in which it appears, it is important in wider respects. For instance, if it is sound it has weighty consequences even if the argument in which it figures fails. Secondly, it is not sound; it succumbs to a simple objection.
Keywords
No keywords specified (fix it)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
TILIWB
Revision history
Archival date: 2015-11-21
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Morals by Agreement.Gauthier, David
Practical Ethics.Singer, Peter
Morals From Motives.Slote, Michael
Republic.Plato, & Reeve, C. D. C.

View all 16 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
597 ( #3,799 of 39,640 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
52 ( #9,000 of 39,640 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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