Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T01:48:19.443Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Psychological consequences of the normativity of moral obligation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 April 2020

Stephen Darwall Open the ORCID record for Stephen Darwall [Opens in a new window]
Stephen Darwall*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Yale University, New Haven, CT06520-8306. [email protected]://campuspress.yale.edu/stephendarwall/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An adequate moral psychology of obligation must bear in mind that although the “sense of obligation” is psychological, what it is a sense of, moral obligation itself, is not. It is irreducibly normative. I argue, therefore, that the “we” whose demands the sense of obligation presupposes must be an ideal rather than an actual “we.”

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 43 , 2020 , e68
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Darwall, S. (2006) The second-person standpoint: Morality, respect, and accountability. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Darwall, S. (2013a) “Bipolar obligation.” In: Morality, authority, and law: Essays in second-personal ethics I, ed. Darwall, S., pp. 20–39. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwall, S. (2013b) Honor, history, and relationship: Essays in second-personal ethics II. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwall, S. (2013c) Morality, authority, and law: Essays in second-personal ethics I. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strawson, P. F. (1968) Freedom and resentment. In: Studies in the philosophy of thought and action. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar