Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-26vmc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T08:25:56.578Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Problems and solutions for a hybrid approach to grounding practical normativity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Jeff Behrends
Jeff Behrends*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Illinois State University, Stevenson Hall 412, Department Box 4540, Normal, IL, 61790-4540, USA
*
*Email: jmbehre@ilstu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Source Hybridism about practical reasons is the position that facts that constitute reasons sometimes derive their normative force from external metaphysical grounds, and sometimes from internal. Although historically less popular than either Source Internalism or Source Externalism, hybridism has lately begun to garner more attention. Here, I further the hybridist’s cause by defending Source Hybridism from three objections. I argue that we are not warranted in rejecting hybridism for any of the following reasons: that hybridists cannot provide an account of normative weight, that hybridists are committed to implausible results concerning practical deliberation, or that Source Hybridism is objectionably unparsimonious.

Keywords

Source InternalismSource ExternalismSource Hybridismpractical reasonspractical normativitypractical deliberationnormative weight
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , April 2015 , pp. 159 - 178
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Philosophy 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arpaly, Nomy, and Schroeder, Timothy. 2012. “Deliberation and Acting for Reasons.”; Philosophical Review 121 (2): 209–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behrends, Jeff. Unpublished. “The Dual Grounds of Practical Normativity: Toward a Hybrid Theory of Practical Reasons.”; Unpublished Manuscript, Illinois State University.Google Scholar
Berker, Selim. 2007. “Particular Reasons.”; Ethics 118 (1): 109–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, Ben. 2009. Well-Being and Death. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Ruth. 2002. “The Possibility of Parity.”; Ethics 112 (4): 659–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Ruth. 2009. “Voluntarist Reasons and the Sources of Normativity.”; In Practical Reason and Action, edited by Sobel, David and Wall, Steven, 243–271. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Ruth. 2013. “Grounding Practical Normativity: Going Hybrid.”; Philosophical Studies 164 (1): 163–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Michael J., and Liggins, David. 2012. “Recent Work on Grounding.”; Analysis 72 (4): 812–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dancy, Jonathan. 2000. “The Particularist’s Progess.”; In Moral Particularism, edited by Hooker, Brad and Little, Margaret, 130–156. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dancy, Jonatahn. 2004. Ethics Without Principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enoch, David. 2005. “Why Idealize?”; Ethics 115 (4): 759–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausman, Daniel M. 2011. Preference, Value, Choice, and Welfare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horty, John F. 2012. Reasons as Defaults. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huemer, Michael. 2005. Ethical Intuitionism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kolodny, Niko. 2011. “Aims as Reasons.”; In Reasons and Recognition: Essays on the Philosophy of T.M. Scanlon, edited by Jay Wallace, R., Kumar, Rahul, and Freeman, Samuel, 43–78. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, Margaret. 2000. “Moral Generalities Revisited.”; In Moral Particularism, edited by Hooker, Brad and Little, Margaret, 276–304. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Little, Margaret. 2001. “On Knowing the ‘Why’: Particularism and Moral Theory.”; Hastings Center Report 31 (4): 32–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parfit, Derek. 2011. On What Matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Paul, Sarah K., and Morton, Jennifer M.. 2014. “Of Reasons and Recognition.”; Analysis 74 (2): 339–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, W. D. 1930. The Right and the Good. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Scanlon, T. M. 2004. “Reasons: A Puzzling Duality.”; In Reason and Value: Themes from the Moral Philosophy of Joseph Raz, edited by Jay Wallace, R., Pettit, Philip, Scheffler, Samuel, and Smith, Michael, 231–246. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Scanlon, T. M. 2009. What We Owe to Each Other. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schroeder, Mark. 2007. Slaves of the Passions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, Mark. 2011. “Holism, Weight, and Undercutting.”; Noûs 45 (2): 328–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sobel, David. 2011. “Parfit’s Case against Subjectivism.”; In Oxford Studies in Metaethics, edited by Shafer-Landau, Russ. Vol. 6, 52–78. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Street, Sharon. 2009. “In Defense of Future Tuesday Indifference: Ideally Coherent Eccentrics and the Contingency of What Matters.”; Philosophical Issues 19: 273–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar