Graham Oddie

According to Fitting Attitude theorists, for something to possess a certain value it is necessary and sufficient that it be fitting to take a certain attitude to the bearer of that value. This seems obvious for thick evaluative attributes, but less obvious for thin evaluative attributes. This chapter argues that the fitting response to the thin evaluative attributes of states is _desire_. The good is what it is fitting to desire, the bad what it is fitting to be averse to, and the better what it is fitting to prefer. For the FA schema to survive the challenges of “wrong kinds of reasons” and “solitary goods,” the fitting response to the goodness of a state has to be a non-factive, non-doxastic representation of the state as good. That desires and preferences are non-doxastic value appearances is independently attractive; this is the simplest hypothesis compatible with the Fitting Attitude approach.

What's Wrong?: Applied Ethicists and Their Critics is a thorough and engaging introduction to applied ethics that covers virtually all of the issues in the field. Featuring more than ninety-five articles, it addresses standard topics - such as abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, world hunger, and animal rights - and also delves into cutting-edge areas like cloning, racial profiling, same-sex marriage, prostitution, and slave reparations. The volume includes seminal essays by prominent philosophers (Robert Nozick, James Rachels, Peter Singer, and Judith Jarvis Thomson) alongside work by newer voices in the field. Employing a unique approach to teaching argumentation, editors David Boonin and Graham Oddie unify the wealth of material presented in this collection. Each chapter opens with a featured article that takes a strong stand on a particular issue; the essays that immediately follow offer objections and critical responses to the arguments put forth in the featured selection. This format helps students learn how to better engage in debates because it illustrates how philosophers argue with each other. In addition, a general introduction describes strategies for understanding and evaluating the different types of arguments contained in the readings, while detailed chapter introductions enable students to see precisely how the arguments presented in the various writings are related to one another. Discussion questions and suggestions for further reading are included for each chapter. Ideal for courses in introduction to ethics and applied ethics/contemporary moral problems, What's Wrong? can also be used in critical thinking courses that emphasize philosophical argumentation.

It is truism that accuracy is valued. Some deem accuracy to be among the most fundamental values, perhaps the preeminent value, of inquiry. Because of this, accuracy has been the focus of two different, important programs in epistemology. The truthlikeness program pursued the notion of propositional accuracy—an ordering of propositions by closeness to the objective truth of some matter. The epistemic utility program pursued the notion of credal state accuracy—an ordering of credal states by closeness to the ideal credal state. It may be tempting to think that each question that informs an inquiry must be  determinate of necessity. That is to say, there must be one correct, precise answer to it. That precise, correct answer is not only the maximally accurate answer to the question, but it also singles out the ideal credal state that is the epistemic target of the inquiry. An enormous amount of the effort has been focused on accuracy with respect to necessarily determinate questions. But often the focus of an inquiry is a question that is not necessarily determinate. Those who deem accuracy to be cognitively valuable, and fundamentally so, need an account of accuracy for indeterminate questions. Ideally such an account would cover both propositional accuracy and credal state accuracy. This is a tall order, and it is not clear that the order can be filled.

According to Fitting Attitude theorists, for something to possess a certain value it is necessary and sufficient that it be fitting to take a certain attitude to the bearer of that value. This seems obvious for thick evaluative attributes, but less obvious for thin evaluative attributes. This chapter argues that the fitting response to the thin evaluative attributes of states is desire. The good is what it is fitting to desire, the bad what it is fitting to be averse to, and the better what it is fitting to prefer. For the FA schema to survive the challenges of “wrong kinds of reasons” and “solitary goods,” the fitting response to the goodness of a state has to be a non-factive, non-doxastic representation of the state as good. That desires and preferences are non-doxastic value appearances is independently attractive; this is the simplest hypothesis compatible with the Fitting Attitude approach.

Two different programmes are in the business of explicating accuracy—the truthlikeness programme and the epistemic utility programme. Both assume that truth is the goal of inquiry, and that among inquiries that fall short of realizing the goal some get closer to it than others. Truthlikeness theorists have been searching for an account of the accuracy of propositions. Epistemic utility theorists have been searching for an account of the accuracy of credal states. Both assume we can make cognitive progress in an inquiry even while falling short of the target. I show that the prospects for combining these two programmes are bleak. A core accuracy principle, proximity, that is universally embraced within the truthlikeness programme turns out to be incompatible with a central principle within the epistemic utility programme, namely propriety. 1Truthlikeness and Epistemic Utility 2Inquiries 3Accuracy for Propositions 4Proximity 5Accuracy for Credal States 6Propriety 7Proximity for Credal States 8Extensionality 9Admissible Weightings 10Propriety Violates Proximity 11Possible Responses 11.1Retreat to convexity 11.2Reject boundedness 11.3Reject additivity 12The Upshot

This chapter examines what happens when certain pathologies of desire are systematically refined. The results suggest that there is a desire-independent value residue, one to which the pure idealist cannot appeal, but one which it seems necessary to invoke if desire-refinement is to converge on the good. That there is a value residue at the level of higher-order desires is pretty well undeniable. At the end of the chapter, the question is raised as to whether there is a value residue at the first-order level as well.

This chapter develops a promising reduction of value to desire. The guiding principle is not the simple idea that the valuable is what we happen to desire in fact, but the more sophisticated and plausible idea that the valuable is what we would desire were we to refine our actual desires into a completely coherent set. It is shown that the map of value which this refinement account delivers is surprisingly close to the realist's map over large stretches of the terrain — much closer than realists would have believed possible, or their antirealist rivals could have reasonably hoped for.

This chapter presents a different and complementary take on the nature of realism and antirealism, one which has a clearer application to value when our journey is almost over than it would have here just as we embark. It argues that realism can be characterized as the affirmation of three important logical gaps. First, there is the gap between appearance and reality — the logical gap which constitutes the possibility of illusion or distortion. Second, there is the gap between reality and belief — the logical gap which constitutes the possibility of error. Third, there is the gap between appearance and belief — the logical gap which constitutes the possibility of incoherence between percept and concept. Various versions of antirealism try to close these gaps, thereby handily blocking the possibility of a certain kind of shortcoming.

According to John Mackie, moral talk is representational but its metaphysical presuppositions are wildly implausible. This is the basis of Mackie's now famous error theory: that moral judgments are cognitively meaningful but systematically false. Of course, Mackie went on to recommend various substantive moral judgments, and, in the light of his error theory, that has seemed odd to a lot of folk. Richard Joyce has argued that Mackie's approach can be vindicated by a fictionalist account of moral discourse. And Mark Kalderon has argued that moral fictionalism is attractive quite independently of Mackie's error-theory. Kalderon argues that the Frege-Geach problem shows that we need moral propositions, but that a fictionalist can and should embrace propositional content together with a non-cognitivist account of acceptance of a moral proposition. Indeed, it is clear that any fictionalist is going to have to postulate more than one kind of acceptance attitude. We argue that this doubleapproach to acceptance generates a new problem -a descendent of Frege-Geach -which we call the acceptance-transfer problem. Although we develop the problem in the context of Kalderon's version of non-cognitivist fictionalism, we show that it is not the noncognitivist aspect of Kalderon's account that generates the problem. A closely related problem surfaces for the more typical variants of fictionalism according to which accepting a moral proposition is believing some closely related non-moral proposition. Fictionalists of both stripes thus have an attitude problem.

This chapter outlines two problems of knowledge which any cognitivist about value faces. One is the familiar problem of the motivational inertness of bare facts, and the knowledge of such facts. The other is the much less familiar problem of value data. The inertness problem can be approached through a puzzling asymmetry in value judgements, an asymmetry which can easily be explained by the internalist thesis that value judgements are special in being intrinsically or necessarily motivating. It is argued that there is a natural way for the cognitivist to explain the puzzling asymmetry, and it is one which simultaneously solves the problem of the missing data. The explanation appeals to two rather radical ideas. First, experiences of value are necessary, though not sufficient, for us to have knowledge of value. Second, desires are experiences of value. The conjunction of these two theses is referred to as the experience conjecture, and it is shown how it explains, inter alia, the puzzling asymmetry.

This chapter argues for the experience conjecture and addresses some of the fairly obvious objections to it. The realist thinks that the world enjoys a certain independence from experience which the idealist denies. She thinks that our experiences do not, all by themselves, determine the shape of reality. The value realist, likewise, thinks that value enjoys a certain independence from our experiences of value — our desires, if the experience conjecture is correct. And the value idealist denies this. Something about value idealism has proved perennially attractive. There is something compelling about the idea that value is, at least in part, the product of our experiences of value. The value idealist thinks that this is the essence of the relationship between value and desire — that desires, taken collectively, fully determine the shape of value.

According to the axiologist the value concepts are basic and the deontic concepts are derivative. This paper addresses two fundamental problems that arise for the axiologist. Firstly, what ought the axiologist o understand by the value of an act? Second, what are the prospects in principle for an axiological representation of moral theories. Can the deontic concepts of any coherent moral theory be represented by an agent-netural axiology: (1) whatever structure those concepts have and (2) whatever the causal structure of the world happens to be. We show that the answer is "almost always". The only substantive constraint is that autonomous moral agents cannot have the power to simultaneously block the options open to other autonomous moral agents. But this seems to be part and parcel of the notion of an autonomous moral agent.

The aim of this paper is to offer a rigorous explication of statements ascribing ability to agents and to develop the logic of such statements. A world is said to be feasible iff it is compatible with the actual past-and-present. W is a P-world iff W is feasible and P is true in W (where P is a proposition). P is a sufficient condition for Q iff every P world is a Q world. P is a necessary condition for Q iff Q is a sufficient condition forP. Each individual property S is shown to generate a rule for an agent X. X heeds S iff X makes all his future choices in accordance with S. (Note that X may heed S and yet fail to have it). S is a P-strategy for X iff X's heeding S together with P is a necessary and sufficient condition for X to have S. (P-strategies are thus rules which X is able to implement on the proviso P).Provisional opportunity: X has the opportunity to A provided P iff there is an S such that S is a P-strategy for X and X's implementing S is a sufficient condition for X's doing A. P is etiologically complete iff for every event E which P reports P also reports an etiological ancestry of E, and P is true. Categorical opportunity: X has the opportunity to A iff there is a P such that P is etiologically complete and X has the opportunity to A provided P. For X to have the ability to A there must not only be an appropriate strategy, but X must have a command of that strategy. X steadfastly intends A iff X intends A at every future moment at which his doing A is not yet inevitable. X has a command of S w.r.t. A and P iff X's steadfastly intending A together with P is a sufficient condition for X to implement S. Provisional ability: X can A provided P iff there is an S such that S is a P-strategy for X, X's implementing S is a sufficient condition for X's doing A, and X has a command of S w.r.t. A and P. Categorical ability: X can A iff there is a P such that P is etiologically complete and X can A provided P. X is free w.r.t. to A iff X can A and X can non- A. X is free iff there is an A such that X is free w.r.t. A.