Non-consequentialists agree that Luke may not kill Lorelai in order to prevent Kirk from killing Richard and Emily. According to this view, Luke faces a deontic constraint: he is forbidden from killing Lorelai, even though doing so will bring about fewer killings overall. The justification of constraints, in my view, faces two challenges. First, constraints must meet the Irrationality Challenge: it needs to be demonstrated that there is nothing inconsistent about the claim that Luke should allow more killings to come about. And, secondly, a successful explanation of constraints must meet the Authority Challenge: we need to know why Luke’s reason not to kill Lorelai is normatively categorical. This dissertation takes up different aspects of Authority Challenge. The first introductory chapter aims to motivate the question of authority as a pressing challenge to non-consequentialism. I argue that the violation of constraints is not just motivated by the thought that they are rationally inconsistent, but by the claim that their intuitive importance cannot be explained. Chapters two and three take up the connection between the authority of constraints and their interpersonal character. In chapter two, I argue that Stephen Darwall’s account of the second-person standpoint cannot yield an account of constraints that satisfies the Authority Challenge and that T.M. Scanlon’s contractualism offers us a better way of accounting for the interpersonal significance of constraints. Chapter three argues that Frances Kamm’s inviolability approach cannot be reconciled with the intuitive distinction between acting wrongly and wronging someone. The arguments of this chapter are meant to demonstrate that in order for wronging to carry any normative significance, it must play a foundational role in our account of permissibility. The fourth chapter argues that Moderate deontologists—those who posit a threshold on the killing of the innocent—cannot make sense of the intuitive authority of deontic constraints. The failure of Moderate deontology, I argue, reveals the overlooked appeal of Absolutism. The fifth chapter argues that the authority of restrictions extends to a prohibition on killing non-responsible threats. I argue that a prohibition on killing non-responsible threats accords with the demands of fairness. / Thesis (Ph.D, Philosophy) -- Queen's University, 2013-08-29 10:37:45.739

Non-consequentialists agree that Luke may not kill Lorelai in order to prevent Kirk from killing Richard and Emily. According to this view, Luke faces a deontic constraint: he is forbidden from killing Lorelai, even though doing so will bring about fewer killings overall. The justification of constraints, in my view, faces two challenges. First, constraints must meet the Irrationality Challenge: it needs to be demonstrated that there is nothing inconsistent about the claim that Luke should allow more killings to come about. And, secondly, a successful explanation of constraints must meet the Authority Challenge: we need to know why Luke’s reason not to kill Lorelai is normatively categorical. This dissertation takes up different aspects of Authority Challenge. The first introductory chapter aims to motivate the question of authority as a pressing challenge to non-consequentialism. I argue that the violation of constraints is not just motivated by the thought that they are rationally inconsistent, but by the claim that their intuitive importance cannot be explained. Chapters two and three take up the connection between the authority of constraints and their interpersonal character. In chapter two, I argue that Stephen Darwall’s account of the second-person standpoint cannot yield an account of constraints that satisfies the Authority Challenge and that T.M. Scanlon’s contractualism offers us a better way of accounting for the interpersonal significance of constraints. Chapter three argues that Frances Kamm’s inviolability approach cannot be reconciled with the intuitive distinction between acting wrongly and wronging someone. The arguments of this chapter are meant to demonstrate that in order for wronging to carry any normative significance, it must play a foundational role in our account of permissibility. The fourth chapter argues that Moderate deontologists—those who posit a threshold on the killing of the innocent—cannot make sense of the intuitive authority of deontic constraints. The failure of Moderate deontology, I argue, reveals the overlooked appeal of Absolutism. The fifth chapter argues that the authority of restrictions extends to a prohibition on killing non-responsible threats. I argue that a prohibition on killing non-responsible threats accords with the demands of fairness. / Thesis (Ph.D, Philosophy) -- Queen's University, 2013-08-29 10:37:45.739

In this essay, the Scanlonian contractualist formula will be understood as follows: Within the domain of morality of what we owe to each other, an action is morally wrong if it follows principles that similarly motivated people can reasonably reject. Consequently, the concept of ‘reasonable rejection’ is the operative element in moral valuation, thus begging the question of what it is for a rejection to be reasonable. The problem of circularity in Scanlon’s contractualism builds upon a reading according to which Scanlon’s explanation of what it is to be ‘reasonably rejected’ seems to be understood as ‘when the action is morally wrong’. If this is the case, then Scanlon’s contractualism refers to its own thesis when performing moral valuations: that is wrong which can be reasonably rejected, and for an action to be reasonably rejected it must be morally wrong. The problem of circularity apparently renders Scanlon’s contractualism ‘empty’ as it cannot explain what it is for an action to be morally wrong without referring to its own thesis. In this essay I will try to clarify the difference between welfarist and structural charges of circularity. I will argue that the structural charges of circularity are due to a fallacious constructivist reading of What We Owe to Each Other. As I understand Scanlon, the constructivist reading places Scanlon’s theory too close to the contractualist tradition. I will also argue that critics holding Scanlon’s contractualism to be circular have failed to note that his theory only claims to cover a narrow domain of morality. Where critics hold Scanlon’s contractualism to refer to its own thesis when performing moral valuations I will argue that the theory refers to moral domains outside that of what we owe to each other. Hopefully my discussion on constructivism and circularity will shed some light on the simple brilliance and practical applicability of Scanlon’s contractualism. I will give a brief overview of What We Owe to Each Other before I present the critique put forth by Onora O’Neill, Mark Timmons and Joseph Raz. Then I will show how Scanlon treats the problem of circularity in his book, and how his defense targets substantial and not structural charges of circularity. I will then show that the structural critique is fallacious by analyzing the domain of morality that Scanlon’s contractualism targets. Finally I will try to apply Scanlon’s formula on personal relationships and on environmental issues. As of this point I will refer to Scanlon’s thesis as ‘contractualism’ while other theories following the contractualist tradition will be referred to as ‘contractarian’.

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Times} Thomas Scanlon provides a theory of why we ought to keep our promises according to which the wrong of breaking a promise is a moral wrong that does not depend on any social practice. Instead a promise provides a recipient with assurance and the value of assurance establishes a moral obligation to keep our promises. However, it is often charged that theories like Scanlon’s are untenable because they are subject to a vicious circularity. I address some recent critics of Scanlon’s theory, all of whom maintain that his account does not adequately show how a promise provides assurance and therefore does not overcome the charge of circularity in explaining why we are obligated to keep our promises. I revise Scanlon’s theory and show how a promise can provide a recipient with assurance, demonstrating that Scanlon’s account is a tenable theory of why we have an obligation to keep our promises.

Partindo das teorias políticas predominantes no século XVIII, o contratualismo e a obediência passiva, personificadas pelos dois principais partidos políticos da Inglaterra àquela época (Whig e Tory), a presente dissertação pretende mostrar como Hume discorda de ambas. Porém, o objetivo central é, sem dúvida, sua refutação ao contratualismo. Para tanto, o texto traz duas linhas de argumentos aptos a tanto: a primeira delas, referente ao conceito de artifício em Hume, significativamente diferente do artifício criado pelos contratualistas, oposição esta a que a tradição de comentaristas da filosofia política humeana de maneira geral não faz referência, especificamente quando se trata da refutação ao contratualismo; a segunda linha de argumentação refere-se à refutação mais direta feita por Hume, a que se pode chamar \"oficial\", em que estão presentes as discussões a respeito do papel do consentimento, da existência de estado de natureza e do pacto expresso ou tácito, da obrigação decorrente das promessas, da origem do governo e da obediência. / Starting from the most popular political theories in the 17th century, contractualism and that of passive obedience, represented by the two main political parties in England at that time (Whig and Tory), this paper intends to show how Hume disagrees with both. However, his main objective is, without a doubt, refuse contractualism. To achieve its end, the text brings two sets of arguments: the first one concerns the concept of artifice in Hume\'s theory, which is very different from the artifice created by the contractarians. This opposition is not in general mencioned by the tradition of commentators, especially when the subject is the refutation of contractualism. The second set of arguments concerns the more direct refutation made by Hume, which we can term the \"official\" one. Here we can include the discussions about the role of consent, the existence of the state of nature and the explicit or tacit contract, the obligation derived from promises, the origin of government and allegiance.

abstract: In their criticism of various approaches to upbringing and related American family law jurisprudence, liberal theorists tend to underweight the interests of parents in directing the development of children’s values. Considered through the lens of T.M. Scanlon’s contractualism, providing a good upbringing is not a matter of identifying children’s “best interests” or acting in accordance with overriding end-state principles. Rather, children should be raised in accordance with principles for the general regulation of behavior that no one could reasonably reject as a basis for informed, unforced general agreement. The process of ascertaining such principles requires an understanding of relevant values; a good upbringing is what children receive when parents properly value their children, enabling them to appropriately recognize what it is that they have reason to do given the roles that they play. By developing the account of upbringing hinted at in Scanlon’s contractualist monograph, What We Owe to Each Other, this project identifies and responds to some common mistakes in contemporary liberal theorizing on childhood, suggests that contractualism yields a more plausible account of upbringing than alternative approaches, and along the way identifies some implications of contractualism for public policy where individuals properly value the children of others in their community. / Dissertation/Thesis / Doctoral Dissertation Philosophy 2019

Partindo das teorias políticas predominantes no século XVIII, o contratualismo e a obediência passiva, personificadas pelos dois principais partidos políticos da Inglaterra àquela época (Whig e Tory), a presente dissertação pretende mostrar como Hume discorda de ambas. Porém, o objetivo central é, sem dúvida, sua refutação ao contratualismo. Para tanto, o texto traz duas linhas de argumentos aptos a tanto: a primeira delas, referente ao conceito de artifício em Hume, significativamente diferente do artifício criado pelos contratualistas, oposição esta a que a tradição de comentaristas da filosofia política humeana de maneira geral não faz referência, especificamente quando se trata da refutação ao contratualismo; a segunda linha de argumentação refere-se à refutação mais direta feita por Hume, a que se pode chamar \"oficial\", em que estão presentes as discussões a respeito do papel do consentimento, da existência de estado de natureza e do pacto expresso ou tácito, da obrigação decorrente das promessas, da origem do governo e da obediência. / Starting from the most popular political theories in the 17th century, contractualism and that of passive obedience, represented by the two main political parties in England at that time (Whig and Tory), this paper intends to show how Hume disagrees with both. However, his main objective is, without a doubt, refuse contractualism. To achieve its end, the text brings two sets of arguments: the first one concerns the concept of artifice in Hume\'s theory, which is very different from the artifice created by the contractarians. This opposition is not in general mencioned by the tradition of commentators, especially when the subject is the refutation of contractualism. The second set of arguments concerns the more direct refutation made by Hume, which we can term the \"official\" one. Here we can include the discussions about the role of consent, the existence of the state of nature and the explicit or tacit contract, the obligation derived from promises, the origin of government and allegiance.

A obra de David Hume é marcada por dois momentos distintos: o Tratado da Natureza Humana, brilhante obra de sua juventude, e as investigações e os ensaios, entre outros textos mais maduros. No contexto dessa transição, suas teorias moral e política sofrem pequenas, porém significativas, modificações. Uma delas diz respeito ao desaparecimento, na segunda Investigação, da dicotomia obrigação naturalmoral de justiça existente no Tratado, e, sobretudo, ao uso mais frequente do sentimento de humanidade, naquela obra, como móbil da ação. Essa tese de fundo, que defende a mencionada modificação na teoria humeana, possibilita ainda que se afirme a existência de duas outras teses: a) que Hume tem mais um argumento para refutar o contratualismo, além daquele declarado expressamente em seus textos; b) que Hume dificilmente pode ser considerado um utilitarista, já que suas teorias do valor, da ação (ou do que é certo) e do motivo são sensivelmente diferentes das teorias utilitaristas clássicas, cabendo-lhe melhor o rótulo de precursor do utilitarismo. / In the works of David Hume, two distinct moments are clearly defined: the A Treatise of Human Nature, a brilliant book from his youth, and the enquiries and the essays, which show more maturity. In the course of this transition, his moral and political theories suffered minor, but important, changes. One of them concerns the elimination, in the second Enquiry, of the dichotomy natural-moral obligation of justice, which existed in the Treatise, and a more frequent use, in that work, of humanity as a cause for action. This argument, which puts forth the aforementioned modification in Hume\'s theory, makes the existence of two other propositions possible: a) that Hume has another argument to refute contractualism, besides the one that is explicitly stated in his texts; b) that Hume can hardly be considered a utilitarian, since his theories of value, of action (or of what is right) and of the motive are significantly different from classical utilitarian theories, making it preferable to label him as a precursor to utilitarianism.

A obra de David Hume é marcada por dois momentos distintos: o Tratado da Natureza Humana, brilhante obra de sua juventude, e as investigações e os ensaios, entre outros textos mais maduros. No contexto dessa transição, suas teorias moral e política sofrem pequenas, porém significativas, modificações. Uma delas diz respeito ao desaparecimento, na segunda Investigação, da dicotomia obrigação naturalmoral de justiça existente no Tratado, e, sobretudo, ao uso mais frequente do sentimento de humanidade, naquela obra, como móbil da ação. Essa tese de fundo, que defende a mencionada modificação na teoria humeana, possibilita ainda que se afirme a existência de duas outras teses: a) que Hume tem mais um argumento para refutar o contratualismo, além daquele declarado expressamente em seus textos; b) que Hume dificilmente pode ser considerado um utilitarista, já que suas teorias do valor, da ação (ou do que é certo) e do motivo são sensivelmente diferentes das teorias utilitaristas clássicas, cabendo-lhe melhor o rótulo de precursor do utilitarismo. / In the works of David Hume, two distinct moments are clearly defined: the A Treatise of Human Nature, a brilliant book from his youth, and the enquiries and the essays, which show more maturity. In the course of this transition, his moral and political theories suffered minor, but important, changes. One of them concerns the elimination, in the second Enquiry, of the dichotomy natural-moral obligation of justice, which existed in the Treatise, and a more frequent use, in that work, of humanity as a cause for action. This argument, which puts forth the aforementioned modification in Hume\'s theory, makes the existence of two other propositions possible: a) that Hume has another argument to refute contractualism, besides the one that is explicitly stated in his texts; b) that Hume can hardly be considered a utilitarian, since his theories of value, of action (or of what is right) and of the motive are significantly different from classical utilitarian theories, making it preferable to label him as a precursor to utilitarianism.

This thesis aims to articulate and defend a version of a 'relational moral theory.' Many philosophers have argued that the non-instrumental value of certain relationships, such as friendship and parenthood, can explain at least some of our moral obligations. A relational moral theory extends this thought by arguing that all, or most, of our moral judgements can be explained by the non-instrumental value of one or more interpersonal relationships. The plausibility of such views depend on the possibility of identifying a relationship that all moral agents share a 'moral relationship'. While the idea of such a relationship has featured in ethical writings as early as the Stoics, few attempts have been made to develop a rigorous and precise understanding of this relationship. This thesis therefore aims to articulate and defend a plausible understanding of the moral relationship, and then to use it as a basis for outlining the structure of a genuinely relational moral theory. It will argue that the moral relationship is best understood as a broad and inclusive relationship shared by all who are vulnerable to a distinct kind of 'second-order evil.' It will then argue that the value of this relationship can provide the basis for a relational form of a contractualist moral theory based on the work of T.M. Scanlon. Understanding the nature of the moral relationship, and the role it plays in such theories, will then be seen as a means of unifying, clarifying, and responding to a number of influential objections against such theories, including objections concerning its capacity to accommodate intuitions concerning cases of aggregation and our obligations to future persons.