Monika Betzler

Reasons of partiality are typically seen as reasons to give our intimates priority over strangers. In his most recent work, however, Samuel Scheffler cautions against an exclusive emphasis on partiality and the reasons it provides. He introduces a new type of relationship-dependent reasons that he thinks we should take more seriously: reasons of deference. In this paper, I critically engage with Scheffler’s claim that reasons of deference amount to a distinct hallmark of intimate relationships. I argue that reasons of deference need to be complemented by another type of relationship-dependent reason: reasons to provide advice to one’s intimate. After showing what such reasons involve, I demonstrate that they function as important barriers that protect us from unjustifiedly deferring to the reasons of our intimates. Conversely, our reasons for deference can protect us from being overly critical of our intimates and thereby advising them poorly.

The paper elucidates a neglected relational wrong, moral indifference, which consists in ignoring or “blanking” someone such that they are deprived of the chance to make a moral difference. Typical examples include not acknowledging an apology, or refraining from expressing reactive attitudes, in relation to a capable agent. The paper identifies the distinct forms and modes in which moral indifference shows up, on the occurrent, dispositional, or structural levels, ultimately arguing that moral indifference consciously denies others the status of equally authoritative sources of valid claims. As a globalist response to another’s agential abilities, moral indifference can wrong others in more fundamental ways than other relational wrongs. In fact, it can threaten their very agency—and not just momentarily—by prompting self-questioning and agential uncertainty. In marginal cases, however, moral indifference can be a legitimate form of self-protection. The paper also has implications for current treatments of crucial moral concepts like recognition respect, basic second-person regard and the debate about the Strawsonian participant- and objective stances.

Colleagues are not only an integral part of many people’s lives; empirical research suggests that having a good relationship with one’s colleagues is the single most important factor for being happy at work. However, so far, no one has provided a comprehensive account of what it means to be a colleague. To address this lacuna, we have conducted both an empirical as well as theoretical investigation into the content and structure of the concept ‘colleague.’ Based on the empirical evidence that we present in this paper, we argue that ‘colleague’ is a dual character concept that has both a descriptive and a normative basis for categorization. Its descriptive dimension is characterized by three features, according to which two people are colleagues if they work for the same institution and know each other, or if they work for the same institution and work in the same field. An independent normative dimension is revealed, which shows that, as colleagues, we are expected to fulfill substantial normative expectations. Understanding the expectations that are encoded in the very structure of this concept is crucial to lay the groundwork for an ethics of collegiality.

Philosophers and scholars from other disciplines have long discussed the role of empathy in our moral lives. The distinct relational value of empathy, however, has been largely overlooked. This article aims to specify empathy’s distinct relational value: Empathy is both intrinsically and extrinsically valuable in virtue of the pleasant experiences we share with others, the harmony and meaning that empathy provides, the recognition, self-esteem, and self-trust it enhances, as well as trust in others, attachment, and affection it fosters. Once we better understand in what ways empathy is a uniquely relational phenomenon, we can unveil its relevance to morality, which avoids the strictures of both partiality and impartiality. On the one hand, it is the relational value of empathy that grounds defeasible reasons to empathize insofar as empathy is morally called for by a particular relationship. On the other hand, it is precisely...

Erstmals im deutschsprachigen Raum werden in diesem repräsentativen Reader Arbeiten von Harry G. Frankfurt publiziert, dessen Überlegungen bedeutsam wurden für nicht-utilitaristische Werttheorien, für die Ethik der Fürsorge bzw. der Tugendethik, aber auch für die moderne Rationalitätstheorie. Freiheit und Determinismus sind miteinander vereinbar - diese Auffassung vertritt Frankfurt nachdrücklich. Zunächst entwickelte er ein hierarchisches Modell des Wünschens und arbeitete eine philosophische Begründung für das Argument aus, daß die Bedingung, jemand hätte anders handeln können, keine notwendige Bedingung für Freiheit und Verantwortung bildet. In seinen neuesten Arbeiten entwirft er ein umfassenderes Konzept der Selbstbestimmung und der Rationalität, wobei er sein früheres Wunschmodell ersetzt durch ein erweitertes hierarchisches Modell fundamentaler Einstellungen, zu denen neben Wünschen nunmehr auch Überzeugungen und Emotionen zählen, die sich daher zugleich auf Konzeptionen unseres Charakters und unserer Integrität richten.

_ Source: _Volume 13, Issue 6, pp 641 - 651 During the last three decades, moral philosophy has seen an increased interest in the ethics of special relationships. The relationship that has gained the most attention in recent years is the family. While there has been some progress in understanding family relationships and their ethical implications, there is still much theoretical ground to cover. In this special issue of the Journal of Moral Philosophy, we present four papers that discuss new questions concerning the rights and duties that are implied by the relationship between parents and children. These include the question whether persons have a right to parent their biological offspring, or a duty to adopt a child, rather than create one; under which circumstances dependent children owe their parents gratitude for the care they provide; and how family relationships can lead to moral blackmailing and thus to moral exploitation of some of their members.

Actions expressing emotions pose a notorious challenge to those concerned with the rational explanation of action. The standard view has it that an agent's desires and means‐end beliefs rationally explain his actions, in the sense that his desire‐belief conglomerates are seen as reasons for which he acts. In light of this view, philosophers are divided on the question of whether actions expressing emotions fall short of being rational, or whether the standard model simply needs to be revised to accommodate them as rational. In this paper, I will show that a core class of actions expressing emotions can be explained as rational, yet not within the framework of the standard model. Instead, such actions can be thought of as grounded in reasons provided by the evaluative perspective that an agent has acquired over time, and by which he has come to identify himself. What moves him to act expressively is the fact that he faces rational pressure to revise or re‐affirm his ongoing evaluative perspective in light of changes in his environment that call that very perspective into question. Such expressive actions serve the function of helping the agent re‐adapt to the environment and re‐establish coherence within his evaluative perspective so as to avoid inner division.