Abstract
There are many different oughts. There is a moral ought, a prudential ought, an epistemic ought, the legal ought, the ought of etiquette, and so on. These oughts can prescribe incompatible actions. What I morally ought to do may be different from what I self-interestedly ought to do. Philosophers have claimed that these conflicts are resolved by an authoritative ought, or by facts about what one ought to do simpliciter or all-things-considered. However, this chapter defends the view that the only coherent notion of an ought simpliciter comes with preposterous first-order normative commitments. It is more reasonable to reject the ought simpliciter in favor of the form of normative pluralism advocated in Tiffany (2007).
Original language | English |
---|---|
Title of host publication | Oxford studies in metaethics |
Editors | Russ Shafer-Landau |
Publisher | Oxford University Press |
Chapter | 12 |
Pages | 230 - 252 |
Number of pages | 23 |
Volume | 13 |
ISBN (Print) | 9780198823858 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Aug 2018 |
Keywords
- senses of ought
- all-things-considered ught
- deliberative ought
- moral ought
- normative pluralism
- morality
- prudence