Eric Wiland

Bernard Williams argued that philosophers should pay more attention to the role thick ethical concepts play in our moral thinking, and, separately, that all reasons for action depend in the first place upon the agent's pre-exisitng motives. Here I argue that these two views are in tension. Much like the standard examples of thick ethical concepts, the concept REASONABLE is likewise thick, and the features of the world that guide its correct use have much less to do with the agent's pre-existing motives than internalism about reasons for action maintains.

It seems that we can know moral truths. We are also rather reluctant to defer to moral testimony. But it’s not obvious how moral cognitivism is compatible with pessimism about moral testimony. If moral truths are knowable, shouldn’t it be possible for others to know moral truths you don’t know, so that it is wise for you to defer to what they say? Or, alternatively, if it’s always reasonable to refuse to defer to the wisest among us, doesn’t this show that morality is not genuinely cognitive? There is a tension in our commonsense moral epistemology. In this chapter I (a) explicate this tension, (b) criticize how others have attempted to resolve it, and finally (c) explain how Rossian deontology helps us see that the tension is only apparent: morality is indeed knowable, despite the fact that it is usually wise to refuse to defer to moral testimony.

Deliberation, whether by design or by default, is often portrayed by philosophers as monological; the contemporary philosopher's agent operates in the same milieu as the Cartesian doubter. But here philosophy is out of step with practice: when a person is in a quandary about what to do, he often turns not inward but outward, consulting others for advice. Sometimes he can completely evaluate the soundness of that advice on his own, but often he trusts the advice proffered, this in part because he recognizes that his advisor is in a better position to figure out what to do than he himself is. ;What would indicate that someone is a person whose advice merits this kind of trust? I argue that often an advisee treats the experiences of the advisor as credentials for offering sound advice. The types of life-experiences that shape one's views are various, including not only the experience of performing virtuous actions , but also experiences of hardship, suffering, as well as actions whose propriety is ambiguous. When the advisee defers to the judgment of the advisor, he thereby implicitly recognizes the cognitivity of her life-experiences. ;Furthermore, thinking about our life-experiences makes possible an interesting defense of the objectivity of morality. Arguments against the objectivity of morality often rest upon the existence of widespread moral disagreement, the thought being that if morality were objective, we would see significant convergence in practical views. But if our life-experiences inform our practical views, then we may argue that a significant portion of moral disagreement can be chalked up to differences in the kinds and qualities of experiences that different people have undergone. Many of the remaining differences may be attributed to the ways in which the lack of face-to-face experiences with those whom our actions affect makes it easier for us to set aside our deeply held practical views. So the prospects for reconciling the existence of widespread moral disagreement with the objectivity of morality are bright. Reflecting on the grounds for trusting advice brings into view resources for defending the objectivity of morality that we otherwise might easily overlook.

People do things for various reasons. Are these motivating reasons psychological? I argue here that such reasons are typically not purely psychological. Yet there is an important psychological element or aspect of these reasons. I proceed by first reviewing some arguments for and against psychologism about (motivating) reasons. Next, I do the same for the view that reasons are typically non-psychological facts. I then explore some additional alternatives: a) disjunctivist views, b) the appositional account, and finally c) naïve action theory, which I favour. Naïve action theory transcends and preserves the best features of both standard psychologism and standard anti-psychologism.