No description available.

In this thesis I propose a solution to the problem of moral luck. It is sometimes assumed that luck has no bearing on morality. However, Bernard Williams and Thomas Nagel, in their papers entitled ‘Moral Luck’, show how this assumption could be erroneous. When making moral judgements it is usually thought that we abide by the ‘Control Principle’. This principle requires any moral judgements about an individual to be made only in cases where they were in control of their actions. The problem of moral luck arises because many moral judgements appear to contradict the Control Principle. My aims in this work are two-fold. First, I disambiguate concepts of luck and moral luck by conceptualising both in light of a Hybrid Account of Luck (HAL). In order to understand moral luck, the concept of luck itself needs to be understood. I begin by distinguishing luck from similar concepts and go on to defend a particular version of HAL that can be adapted to identify genuine cases of moral luck. Second, I propose a possible solution to the problem of moral luck based primarily on a critique of some of Nagel’s basic presuppositions regarding the issue in conjunction with a defence of Terence Irwin’s interpretation of Aristotle’s complex theory of moral responsibility. By giving a number of examples, I hope to establish that there is circumstantial moral luck and resultant moral luck, and that Aristotle’s conditions for moral responsibility can provide an adequate justification for praise and blame in these cases.

Moral error theory is the thesis that statements attributing moral properties to objects are always untrue. In my thesis I have two aims: to argue for error theory and defend it from a number of objections (chapters 1 and 2); and to consider whether and how we should go on with moral discourse, if we come to accept error theory (chapters 3 and 4). In the first chapter I argue for error theory by defending a number of metaethical theses which taken together reveal that sincere utterances of indicative moral sentences commit us to ‘objectively prescriptive values’. I then go on to defend the arguments of J.L. Mackie and Richard Joyce that such values do not exist, and thus indicative moral sentences are systematically untrue. In the second chapter I deal with five objections to error theory: (i) error theory is self-undermining; (ii) error theory defies commonsense; (iii) error theory is defeated by a modal counter argument; (iv) moral error theory entails an absurd epistemic error theory; (v) the error theorist’s denial that there are any categorical imperatives is untenable, as it is constitutive of being a rational agent that one is guided by certain categorical norms. I show how each of these objections can be dealt with. In the third chapter I begin to look at what we should do with moral discourse once we have accepted error theory. The main foci of this chapter are eliminativism (the thesis that we ought to stop engaging in moral discourse) and reformist realism (the thesis that we should modify the semantics of moral discourse so that our moral terms can successfully refer). I argue that the rationales that have been provided for eliminativism, such as that moral societies are harmful to most of their members, and that it always harmful to make untrue judgements, are unpersuasive. I consider the most plausible way of being a reformist realist is to argue that we should become moral relativists, but I argue that such a move would be unstable and we would revert to non-relativist type. In the fourth chapter I focus on moral fictionalism (the thesis that we should continue to use indicative moral sentences, while adopting some attitude to them other than belief). One of the more interesting motivations that has been offered for moral fictionalism is that moral discourse either facilitates or is essential for some non-moral description. I find no evidence for the stronger claim, but argue that there is some plausibility in the weaker claim. Another interesting suggestion (made by Joyce) is that pretending that certain actions are morally required or forbidden will help motivate prudent behaviour. I argue that although it is very plausible that thinking in moral terms can motivate prudent behaviour, Joyce fails to provide a convincing argument that we can retain these positive motivational effects if we abandon moral belief. In light of this, I argue that the only way for error theorists to retain the positive motivational aspect of moral discourse is by becoming conservationists. The conservationist argues that we can and should continue to form and be guided by genuine moral beliefs, even if we have become convinced of the error theory. Naturally, conservationism is open to a variety of objections, and I deal with the ones that seem most pressing.

I provide an explanation of moral understanding. I begin by describing decisions, especially moral ones. I detail ways in which deviations from an ideal of decision-making occur. I link deviations to characteristic critical judgments, e.g. being cavalier, banal, courageous, etc. Moral judgments are among these and carry a particular personal gravity. The question I entertain in following chapters is: how do they carry this gravity? In answering the question, I try “external” accounts of moral understanding. I distinguish between the ideas of a person and a life. The idea of a life essayed is of a network of relations to others. The character of those relations, e.g. friendship, is the object of our understanding of ourselves and our lives. I argue that one’s understanding of oneself conditions the context of decision-making. I elaborate one way of making moral understanding answerable to truth using Plato’s metaphysics in the Philebus. Truth is valued and truth is essential to the independence of the moral such that seeming right and being right are distinct. However, truth is neither primary nor exhaustive of morality, because we have additional distinct resources for morally judging others. I turn instead to an “internal” account of moral understanding to answer the question regarding the personal gravity of moral criticism. Using Winch’s work on universalizability and fellowship, I argue that our conception of others must be sufficient to reflect their individuality within our moral understanding. Second, using Gaita’s work on remorse and the lucidity of self-reflection, I argue that the truth about ourselves and the wrong we do others can arrest and constrain our moral understanding and our authority. Moral understanding operates in a social milieu: argument, conversation and rationality. Arguments are grounded in meanings with primary (shared) sense, but solicit agreement in secondary sense—of what is similar, of what follows. Meaning in the secondary sense can be necessarily practical, creating practical necessities within points of view. Accounting for the consequences and understanding of disagreement is identified as pressing. An original contribution is the idea of critical authority. One’s articulation of moral meaning is controlled via the critical authority expressed using critical vocabulary. Accepting another ’s critical authority is based, in differing domains, on our relation to them, e.g. friendship, trust, fellowship. The nature of inter-personal relations are delimited by the critical authority characteristic of those relations. Critical authority explains the independent and personal force of moral criticism. To be intelligible depends on accepting some critical authorities, though I allow for the intelligible repudiation of morality in some circumstances. Wronging someone is explained as denying his critical authority, thus denying his relation to oneself, and thereby undermining his place in the moral world. The consequence of wrongdoing is the disintegration of the moral world. I defend against Nagel’s realism and Korsgaard’s constructivism. Both are committed to judging individuals but their accounts of morality undermine the intelligibility of the personal gravity of moral criticism. Developing the idea of Moral Consensus, I defend myself against the related charge of relativism.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.