Discussion about this post

User's avatar
meika loofs samorzewski's avatar

"Scepticism about ought simpliciter is the view that there is no such thing as what one ought simpliciter to do. Instead, practical deliberation is governed by a plurality of normative standpoints, each authoritative from their own perspective but none authoritative simpliciter. This paper aims to resist such scepticism. After setting out the challenge in general terms, I argue that scepticism can be resisted by rejecting a key assumption in the sceptic’s argument. This is the assumption that standpoint-relative ought judgments bring with them a commitment to act in accordance with those judgments. Instead, I propose an alternative account of our normative concepts according to which only ought simpliciter judgments commit one to acting in accordance with those judgments. In addition to answering the sceptical challenge, the proposal offers an independently motivated account of what makes a concept normatively authoritative."

The other option is that we have an urge to should, or ought, and this is selected for in evolutionary frameworks, and the details of a morality are less important than trying to organise ouselves, compare to groups who do not try (and fail, and make mistakes and learn). In which case authority is not needed, but a process to capture learning is. This answers both what sceptical challenges bring to notice, and why appeals to and for authoritative frameworks in some parts of the population, they help us make mistakes. Rules are made to be broken type thing. "An independently motivated account" is therefore interesting but perhaps unnecessary. (logic is a hindsight).

Expand full comment
meika loofs samorzewski's avatar

ok, had a new read in th e\\e morning, the link given is broke I'm afraid... https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00048402.2023.2225527

Expand full comment
3 more comments...

No posts