The University of St Andrews

Research@StAndrews:FullText >
Philosophical, Anthropological & Film Studies (School of) >
Philosophy >
Philosophy Theses >

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
This item has been viewed 6 times in the last year. View Statistics

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
Dissertation - submission VERSION.pdf513.21 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
Title: "Why should I be moral?" : a critical assessment of three contemporary attempts to give an extra-moral justification of moral conduct
Authors: Pedersen, Johnnie R. R.
Supervisors: Skorupski, John
Keywords: Normative question
Issue Date: 20-Jun-2007
Abstract: In this dissertation I consider three distinct attempts to answer the normative question “Why should I be moral?”, all of which assume that a successful answer must be capable of arguing someone who is currently not motivated by moral considerations at all into becoming moral. I outline an argument against the possibility of doing so which relies on the distinction between agent-relativity and agent-neutrality, and which states that since morality essentially involves agent-neutrality and since failure to recognize the reason-giving force of agent-neutral considerations is not necessarily irrational, one cannot be argued into being moral. I then show how the approaches of Christine Korsgaard, as encountered in her "The Sources of Normativity", Joseph Raz, as he puts it forth in “The Amoralist”, and lastly, David Brink as he puts it forth in “Self-Love and Altruism”, each in their different ways, fail in their attempts to argue someone into becoming moral.
Type: Thesis
Publisher: University of St Andrews
Appears in Collections:Philosophy Theses

This item is protected by original copyright

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.


DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2012  Duraspace - Feedback
For help contact: | Copyright for this page belongs to St Andrews University Library | Terms and Conditions (Cookies)