Reasons or fittingness first?

Journal article

Rowland, Richard. (2017). Reasons or fittingness first? Ethics: an international journal of social, political, and legal philosophy. 128(1), pp. 212 - 229. https://doi.org/10.1086/692949
AuthorsRowland, Richard
Abstract

Conor McHugh and Jonathan Way argue that we should put fittingness rather than reasons first because we can provide an account of the evaluative in terms of the normative only if we put fittingness rather than reasons first. I argue that it is no more difficult to provide an account of the evaluative in terms of the normative if we put reasons rather than fittingness first.

Year2017
JournalEthics: an international journal of social, political, and legal philosophy
Journal citation128 (1), pp. 212 - 229
PublisherUniversity of Chicago Press
ISSN0014-1704
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)https://doi.org/10.1086/692949
Open accessOpen access
Page range212 - 229
Research GroupInstitute for Religion and Critical Inquiry
Publisher's version
Place of publicationUnited States of America
Permalink -

https://acuresearchbank.acu.edu.au/item/8q4q0/reasons-or-fittingness-first

Log in to edit

Download files

Publisher's version
OA_Rowland_2017_Reasons_or_fittingness_first.pdf

  • 86
    total views
  • 234
    total downloads
  • 2
    views this month
  • 7
    downloads this month
These values are for the period from 19th October 2020, when this repository was created.

Export as

Related outputs

The normative and the evaluative : The buck-passing account of value
Rowland, Richard. (2019). The normative and the evaluative : The buck-passing account of value Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198833611.001.0001
The intelligibility of moral intransigence: A dilemma for cognitivism about moral judgment
Rowland, Richard. (2018). The intelligibility of moral intransigence: A dilemma for cognitivism about moral judgment. Analysis. 78(2), pp. 266 - 275. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/anx140
The significance of significant fundamental moral disagreement
Rowland, Richard. (2017). The significance of significant fundamental moral disagreement. Nous. 51(4), pp. 802 - 831. https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12170
Our intuitions about the experience machine
Rowland, Richard. (2017). Our intuitions about the experience machine. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy: online peer-reviewed journal of moral, political and legal philosophy. 12(1), pp. 110 - 117. https://doi.org/10.26556/jesp.v12i1.216
The epistemology of moral disagreement
Rowland, Richard. (2017). The epistemology of moral disagreement. Philosophy Compass. 12(2), pp. 1 - 16. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12398
Rescuing Companions in Guilt Arguments
Rowland, Richard. (2016). Rescuing Companions in Guilt Arguments. The Philosophical Quarterly. 66(262), pp. 161 - 171. https://doi.org/10.1093/pq/pqv070
In defence of good simpliciter
Rowland, Richard. (2016). In defence of good simpliciter. Philosophical Studies. 173(5), pp. 1371 - 1391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-015-0551-9
Dissolving the Wrong Kind of Reason Problem
Rowland, Richard. (2015). Dissolving the Wrong Kind of Reason Problem. Philosophical Studies. 172(6), pp. 1455 - 1474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-014-0359-z
Reasons as the Unity Among the Varieties of Goodness
Rowland, Richard. (2015). Reasons as the Unity Among the Varieties of Goodness. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1111/papq.12057
Wrong Kind of Reasons and Consequences
Rowland, Richard. (2013). Wrong Kind of Reasons and Consequences. Utilitas. 25(3), pp. 405 - 416. https://doi.org/10.1017/s095382081300006X
Moral Error Theory and the Argument from Epistemic Reasons
Rowland, Richard. (2013). Moral Error Theory and the Argument from Epistemic Reasons. Journal of ethics and social philosophy. 7(1), pp. 1 - 24.
Why Pass Every Buck? On Skorupski's Buck-Passing Account of Normativity
Rowland, Richard. (2011). Why Pass Every Buck? On Skorupski's Buck-Passing Account of Normativity. Ratio: an international journal of analytic philosophy. 24(3), pp. 340 - 348. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9329.2011.00504.x