This paper has two aims. The first is to present and defend a new argument for rights contributionism – the view that the notion of a moral claim-right is a contributory (or pro tanto) rather than overall normative notion. The argument is an inference to the best explanation: it is argued that (i) there are contributory moral factors that contrast with standard moral reasons by way of having a number of formal properties that are characteristic of rights, even though (...) they can be overridden, and (ii) that this is best explained by a view that takes these factors to correlate with rights. The second aim is to show that the truth of rights contributionism matters for normative ethics. More specifically, it is argued that rights contributionism clears the way for deontologists to justify the pre-theoretically plausible verdict that we have a duty to save the greater number in so-called Taurek scenarios – scenarios in which we have to choose between saving either a greater or a smaller number of different people. The chapter offers a novel and distinctively deontological explanation of this verdict that is based on the assumption that everyone has a pro tanto right to be saved in a Taurek scenario. (shrink)

I summarize a conception of morality as containing a set of rules which hold ceteris paribus and which impose pro-tanto obligations. I explain two ways in which moral rules are ceteris-paribus, according to whether an exception is duty-voiding or duty-overriding. I defend the claim that moral rules are ceteris-paribus against two qualms suggested by Luke Robinson’s discussion of moral rules and against the worry that such rules are uninformative. I show that Robinson’s argument that moral rules cannot ground pro- (...) class='Hi'>tanto obligations is unsound, because it confuses an absolute reason for an obligation with a reason for an absolute obligation, and because it overlooks the possibility that priority rules may be rules for ordering pro-tanto obligations rather than rules for eliminating contenders for the status of absolute obligation. (shrink)

In _The Ethics of Whistleblowing_ (2019), Boot engages with the current literature on unauthorized disclosure of information, critically examines some positions, and defends others. One early step of the book’s main argument is to claim that whistleblowing is _pro tanto_ wrong. This claim which many parties of the debate accept affects the narrative of the discussion and also plays a role against attempts to justify whistleblowing based on moral rights. In opposition to such a claim, I argue that one can (...) similarly ascribe _pro tanto_ rightness to whistleblowing. However, this would also be a mistake. In principle, such claims are inaccurate concerning how _pro tanto_ reasons work. Considering the motivations for taking up Ross’s idea of _prima facie_ duties, and having in mind the theoretical role they are supposed to play, I suggest that only simple type-acts (as contrasted with complex act-types) may be called _pro tanto_ right or wrong. Therefore, although widely appealed to, such claims about whistleblowing are neither helpful nor successful in the debate. (shrink)

There are many uses in English of the word “ought” (see Ought). This essay concerns the normative uses and the concepts or properties denoted thereby. In particular, it concerns two nonfinal oughts commonly used in the philosophical literature: prima facie oughts and pro tanto oughts.

Some recent scholarship in the philosophy of criminal law has claimed that sexual penetration ‘per se’—meaning, consensual or otherwise—is pro tanto morally wrong, or that there exist ‘general reasons’ against it. On such a view, penetrative sex is only ever at best justified wrongdoing. When paired with an influential view about the theoretical basis of the offence-defence distinction in criminal law, the apparent implication is that sexual penetration alone ought to constitute the actus reus of rape, with the question (...) of consent relegated to a defence matter. This article firstly sets out some of the difficult upshots of considering all sexual penetration to be pro tanto wrong, particularly when one attends to the full moral entailments of justified wrongdoing. Assuming, arguendo, that sexual penetration is pro tanto wrong, it is also far from clear, I suggest, that consent, of all things, amounts to a justification for penetrative sex. This creates further difficulties for the pro tanto wrong view. Finally, I argue that even if penetrative sex is a pro tanto moral wrong of some kind, it does not follow, as some scholars have suggested, that there is a case for making penetrative sex as such the offence element of rape. (shrink)

I defend one way of solving the Impermissibility Problem—that is, the problem that on moralized approaches to coercion, coerciveness and permissibility are mutually exclusive. This brings up intuitive difficulties for cases such as taxation, which seem to be both coercive and permissible. I gloss three popular theories of coercion—the moralized baseline, nonmoralized baseline, and enforcement approaches—and conclude that only the nonmoralized baseline approach clearly solves the problem. However, Robert Nozick’s famous “slave case” raises another serious issue for the nonmoralized baseline (...) approach. So, in order to solve both the slave case and the Impermissibility Problem, I draw on Grant Lamond’s discussion of the coerciveness of law to propose the pro tanto wrong approach. On this approach, coercion is not impermissible simpliciter, but requires some sort of special justification. The pro tanto wrong approach is moralized, but on it, moralization comes in coercion’s need for justification, not in whether it is, in fact, justified. Thus impermissibility is neither necessary nor sufficient for coerciveness, and the Impermissibility Problem is avoided. I conclude that solving the problem in this way is desirable because it preserves a core belief of liberalism: certain acts, including taxation, may be both coercive and permissible. (shrink)

Critics often argue that Ross’s metaphysical and epistemological accounts of all-things-considered duties suffer from the problem of explanation. For Ross did not give us any clear explanation of the combination of pro tanto duties, i.e. how principles of pro tanto duties can combine. Following from this, he did not explain how we could arrive at overall justified moral judgements. In this paper, I will argue that the problem of explanation is not compelling. First of all, it is based (...) on the classical account of pro tanto duties. Principles of pro tanto duties can be understood in another way, i.e. in terms of reason-giving account that might be of help to provide a response to the critics. Furthermore, critics fail to see some evidence in Ross about how we can arrive at moral judgements. (shrink)

Criminalisation theorists who try to explain when substantive criminal law may appropriately be deployed to shrink the scope of our presumptive initial liberty, often take their project as requiring them to identify the sorts of conduct for which may the state criminally convict. I argue that this is a mistake. While such theories of ‘convictability’ have their place, they do not completely explain the use of substantive criminal law to limit our presumptive initial liberty. Convictions ensue only after pleas of (...) justification and excuse fail, but the substantive criminal law coercively limits liberty well before conviction, when it creates a pro tanto criminal proscription. Even those who can escape conviction by pleading a justificatory or excusatory defence were, in fact, subject to authoritative criminal law guidance proscribing (or sometimes, requiring) specified conduct. Although that guidance is sometimes trumped by the additional guidance contained in defences, it is not null and void, and it continues to have a liberty-limiting effect. In other words, substantive criminal law already shrinks our initial liberty by pro tanto criminally proscribing some conduct. Therefore, I argue that we also need a theory of criminalisation that addresses the appropriate domain of pro tanto criminal proscriptions. (shrink)

Criminalisation theorists who try to explain when substantive criminal law may appropriately be deployed to shrink the scope of our presumptive initial liberty, often take their project as requiring them to identify the sorts of conduct for which may the state criminally convict. I argue that this is a mistake. While such theories of ‘convictability’ have their place, they do not completely explain the use of substantive criminal law to limit our presumptive initial liberty. Convictions ensue only after pleas of (...) justification and excuse fail, but the substantive criminal law coercively limits liberty well before conviction, when it creates a pro tanto criminal proscription. Even those who can escape conviction by pleading a justificatory or excusatory defence were, in fact, subject to authoritative criminal law guidance proscribing (or sometimes, requiring) specified conduct. Although that guidance is sometimes trumped by the additional guidance contained in defences, it is not null and void, and it continues to have a liberty-limiting effect. In other words, substantive criminal law already shrinks our initial liberty by pro tanto criminally proscribing some conduct. Therefore, I argue that we also need a theory of criminalisation that addresses the appropriate domain of pro tanto criminal proscriptions. (shrink)

In Climate Matters (2012), John Broome argues that individuals have private duties to offset all emissions for which they are causally responsible, grounded in the general moral injunction against doing harm. Emissions do harm, therefore they must be neutralized. I argue that individuals' private duties to offset emissions cannot be grounded in a duty to do no harm, because there can be no such general duty. It is virtually impossible in our current social context―for those in developed countries at least―to (...) do no harm, and we cannot have duties to do what we cannot do. I argue that this shifts the general injunction from 'do no harm' to 'do the least harm', and thereby reopens the question of tradeoffs which Broome had set aside as a matter of 'goodness' rather than 'justice'. He admits that when it comes to goodness, reducing emissions is not the best way to promote the good. The focus of this paper is on whether when it comes to minimizing injustice, reducing emissions is the best way. Climate change is undoubtedly one of the most important issues we face; it's clear that it matters prima facie. The question is whether―and to what extent―it matters all-things-considered. (shrink)

While ‘regions’ continue to generate discussion in fields such as international relations as well as playing a role in practical politics, political philosophers have shown little interest. Common theories of political philosophy fail to include reasoning about regions normatively, despite collaborations amongst neighbouring states being key to pool resources and build capacity, and raise several questions pertaining to sovereignty. I set out to formulate pro tanto regional obligations, understood as valid claims of states for assistance from other states in (...) their region. The article is limited to the special conditions of large-scale disasters which transform the normative expectations between democracies. (shrink)

Judith Jarvis Thomson and others contend that rights are pro-tanto rather than absolute, that is, that rights may permissibly be infringed in some circumstances. Alan Gewirth maintains that there are some rights that are absolute because infringing them would amount to unspeakable evil. However, there seem to be possible circumstances in which it would be permissible to infringe even those rights. Specificationists, such as Gerald Gaus, Russ Shafer-Landau, Hillel Steiner and Kit Wellman, argue that all rights are absolute because (...) they have implicit exceptions, the exceptions being either right-voiding or right-compatible. Specificationists have charged pro-tantoism with preventing rights from being action-guiding, and pro-tantoists have levelled the same charge against specificationism. I show that both charges are mistaken. Pro-tantoists claim that specificationists cannot account for the moral remainder that we recognise in some circumstances and which can be explained by reference to a permissible right-infringement. Specificationists retort that the moral remainder can be explained by invoking compensation-rights. I show that the pro-tantoist claim is true and that the specificationist retort is false on two counts: explanation in terms of compensation-rights is not applicable to all cases; and it fails to account for the moral dynamic in the cases to which it is applicable. The contention that rights are pro-tanto does not conflict with the substance of the contention that rights are trumps, despite claims of specificationists to the contrary. (shrink)

Quienes nos adscribimos al realismo metafísico y tenemos a Robert Spaemann como uno de nuestros filósofos de referencia, celebramos que Comares haya editado una “introducción a la ética de Robert Spaemann”, elaborada por la profesora de la Universidad Católica de Ávila y de la Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca Mª Luisa Pro Velasco (Pro Velasco, 2021). En su introducción, la autora señala que su estudio viene a cubrir el vacío provocado por la escasez de trabajos sobre el filósofo alemán. Y ciertamente (...) lo hace. Por eso, no se trata tanto de un ensayo dirigido a quienes ya conocemos a Spaemann, cuanto de una síntesis orientada a seducir a un público culto de amplio espectro, interesado por la filosofía y cansado de las propuestas éticas idealistas (e ideológicas), para que descubra la obra de este gran filósofo y se adhiera a su idea de que la verdad, por más que sea perspectivista y se deje decir desde múltiples ubicaciones, es siempre verdad y se asienta sobre la realidad. En lo que sigue, ofrecemos una breve recensión del contenido del libro, al objeto de ayudar a los lectores a decidirse en favor de su lectura. (shrink)

The discussion develops the view that public justification in Rawls’s political liberalism, in one of its roles, is actualist in fully enfranchising actual reasonable citizens and fundamental in political liberalism’s order of justification. I anchor this reading in the political role Rawls accords to general reflective equilibrium, and examine in its light the relationship between public justification, pro tanto justification, political values, full justification, the wide view of public political culture and salient public reason intuitions. This leaves us with (...) the question of how a more plausible, post-Rawlsian political liberalism should understand the commitment to discursive respect and robust discursive equality that is reflected in its view of actualist and fundamental public justification. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is to consider the question of whether we have a duty to forgive those who repent and apologize for the wrong they have done. I shall argue that we have a pro tanto duty to forgive repentant wrongdoers, and I shall propose and consider the norm of forgiveness. This norm states that if a wrongdoer repents and apologizes to a victim, then the victim has a duty to forgive the wrongdoer, other things being equal. (...) That someone has a pro tanto duty to forgive a repentant wrongdoer means that he or she ought to forgive unless other considerations outweigh the norm of forgiveness. Furthermore, a distinction is made between what are termed 'general considerations' and 'case-relative considerations', and it is argued that only after all the relevant considerations have been examined can it be determined whether there is a duty to forgive, all things considered. (shrink)

Intractable disagreement among philosophers is ubiquitous. An implication of such disagreement is that many philosophers hold false philosophical beliefs (i.e. at most only one party to a dispute can be right). Suppose that we distribute philosophers along a spectrum arranged from philosophers with mostly true philosophical beliefs on one end (high‐reliability), to those with mostly false philosophical beliefs on the other (low‐reliability), and everyone else somewhere in‐between (call this is the reliability spectrum). It is hard to see how philosophers could (...) accurately locate themselves on the reliability spectrum; they are prima facie as well positioned as their peers with respect to philosophical matters (call this the placement problem). In this paper, I argue that the reliability spectrum and placement problem lend support to modest meta‐philosophical skepticism: we have a pro tanto (but not an all‐things‐considered) reason to withhold ascent to philosophical claims. (shrink)

La fenomenologia possiede un implicito potenziale pedagogico estremamente promettente e tuttavia ancora largamente inesplorato. Il presente articolo suggerisce che l’orientamento fenomenologico-esistenziale nella didattica e nell’educazione rappresenti una possibile soluzione per: 1) riportare tutti i differenti aspetti metodologici del processo formativo ad una unità tematica; 2) sviluppare negli studenti che si preparano ad esercitare una professione di cura l’attitudine a svolgere il loro servizio in modo autentico, sostenendo la motivazione, rendendo possibile il coinvolgimento emotivo senza il quale il gesto di cura (...) non potrebbe nascere, favorendo la realizzazione di significati e di valori e prevenendo il rischio sempre presente di burnout. Viene qui esplorato il significato dei termini fenomenologia ed esistenzialismo, intendendo con il primo una particolare postura metodologica dinanzi alla realtà, e con l’altro un ambito di ricerca concernente il senso dell’esistenza umana. In tal modo, la formazione del professionista, ancorché scientificamente fondata, non perde di vista i due riferimenti ineludibili che sostengono le professioni d’aiuto: il contatto con la soggettività e la coltivazione dell’umanità quale imprescindibile risorsa professionale . Poiché l’approccio fenomenologico-esistenziale abitua ad un sapere contestualizzato,individualizzato e “sapienziale”, i professionisti del lavoro cura che sono stati formati secondo una sensibilità fenomenologico-esistenziale saranno meglio equipaggiati per fronteggiare e gestire le sfide che quotidianamente coloro che svolgono un lavoro di cura devono affrontare, nonché più preparati a cogliere in modo profondo i bisogni della popolazione e a rispondervi in modo creativo ed efficace. È una questione di sguardo: l’atteggiamento fenomenologico forma nei professionisti la capacità di “vedere” ciò che altrimenti resterebbe implicito, latente, imbrigliato nelle maglie dell’ovvietà e della routine. In questo senso si parla qui di una sorta di “oftalmologia” pedagogica: perché lo scopo della formazione non consiste tanto nel trasmettere una nozione della realtà , quanto nell’affinare la capacità di coglierne l’essenza e il significato più profondo. L’articolo offre alcune suggestioni rispetto al modo in cui i formatori possono trasferire queste nozioni nella costruzione di un ambiente di apprendimento aperto all’esperienza viva e aderente al mondo della vita.This paper poses the suggestion that existential phenomenology provides an ideal solution for 1) integrating all of the different methodological aspects of the educational process into a thematic unity for the student and 2) empowering students entering the caring professions to best serve their intended populations authentically, while avoiding the ever-present peril of burnout. The meanings of both phenomenology and existentialism are clarified, with phenomenology indicating a particular methodological stance toward phenomena, and existentialism indicating research content concerned with domains of human meaning. It is anticipated that students preparing to enter the caring professions who have training in existential phenomenology will be better equipped to manage challenges commonly faced by those in the caring vocations, as well as to prepare them to assist the populations they serve with meaning-oriented crises and needs. A few suggestions on how educators might bring these notions into the classroom environmentensue. (shrink)

Future-directed intentions, it is widely held, involve behavioral dispositions. But of what kind? Suppose you now intend to Φ at future time t. Are you thereby now disposed to Φ at t no matter what? If so, your intention disposes you to Φ even if around t you will come to believe that Φ-ing would be crazy. And would not that be a crazy intention to have? – Like considerations have led Luca Ferrero and others to believe that only intentions (...) with strong internal conditions are capable of rationality. This paper explores in how far a broadly dispositional view of intention supports their claims. Its first point will come as a surprise: Intentions indeed involve dispositions toward follies in plenty. Natural objections against this bizarre-sounding claim are shown to fail, and standard counterfactual analyses of disposition locutions are shown to underpin it further. However, since the dispositions at issue are pro tanto dispositions, the consequences are not as odd as might be expected: When hedged by reasonable habits to reconsider one’s intentions, dispositions toward follies do not entail any actual crazy behavior. On balance, unconditional intention is therefore found rational after all. Dispositions toward crazy actions need not be crazy dispositions. (shrink)

In this article, my aim is to consider under what circumstances, and for what reasons, individuals may freely choose not to speak hatefully about others. Even if not threatened with legal sanction, why might they decide not to say something which they think they have good reason to say? My suggestion will be that there are various pro tanto reasons for individuals to restrain themselves from saying what they wanted to say. To be specific, I shall argue that such (...) reasons fall into three analytically distinct categories, which I shall describe as normative codes of civility, ethics and morality. Thus each of these codes may provide different sorts of reasons for not engaging in hate speech. My hope is that the results of this investigation may usefully inform a strategy which aims to combat such speech without resource to the law. (shrink)

Resumen Nuestro trabajo presenta una nueva propuesta de lectura de una inscripción hallada en Emporiae en honor de un M. Iuṇ[ius] cuya identidad tratamos de determinar, planteando la posibilidad de que se trate del pretor M. Iunius citado por Cicerón en su discurso Pro Cluentio y de que, por lo tanto, la inscripción corresponda a su posible proconsulado en Hispania Citerior hacia el año 68 a. C. Dicho supuesto nos permite al mismo tiempo poner al personaje en relación con (...) las circunstancias fundacionales de la ciudad romana de Emporiae, cuyo nacimiento sitúan hoy ciertos arqueólogos en las primeras décadas del siglo I a. C. (shrink)

It appears that light may be thrown on the nature of moral principles if they are construed as moral laws analogous to ceteris-paribus laws of nature. Luke Robinson objects that the analogy either cannot explain how moral principles are necessary or cannot explain how obligations can be pro-tanto; and that a dispositional account of moral obligation has explanatory superiority over one in terms of moral laws. I explain the analogy, construing laws of nature as necessary relationships after the fashion (...) of William Kneale and Karl Popper. I then show that Robinson’s objections are mistaken and that if the difference between a dispositional account and a law account is not merely verbal, then it is the law account that is superior. I also dispel the common confusion between the necessity of laws and the existence of forces. (shrink)

Recent discussion on the ethics of killer robots has focused on the supposed lack of respect their deployment would show to combatants targeted, thereby causing their undignified deaths. I present two rebuttals of this argument. The weak rebuttal maintains that while deploying killer robots is an affront to the dignity of combatants, their use should nevertheless be thought of as a pro tanto wrong, making deployment permissible if the affront is outweighed by some right-making feature. This rebuttal is, however, (...) vulnerable to the charge that killer robots would cause unnecessary suffering. The strong rebuttal, in contrast, argues that the use of killer robots would not disrespect the dignity of combatants, for reasons discussed. I also argue that, irrespective of whether killer robots disrespect the dignity of combatants, they would not necessarily bring about their undignified deaths: for one can maintain dignity in the face of indignity. (shrink)

El artículo estudia esa obra de Agustín, señalando que la sección de relatos de sueños y visiones en que se aparecen tanto vivos como muertos, está vinculada fuertemente a la parte anterior del tratado, mediante mecanismos lingüísticos. Muestra también que la tercera sección de la obra no es una digresión, sino un elemento esencial de la argumentación.

The pro tanto duty not to harm is arguably the most widely accepted basis for moral demand. However, in the case of global poverty, even if we accept that individual members of wealthier nations are responsible for harming the global poor (through their constitution of, or participation in or with, global institutions that harm), it remains difficult to claim that individuals violate a negative duty in doing so. For an agent to hold a duty, that duty must be at (...) least (a) recognizable to a reasonably competent observer, and (b) fulfillable, two criteria which do not appear to be met. This paper argues that we have misunderstood the way in which the global community harms the global poor. As a result, there are a range of acts—the provision of financial aid—which the global community largely fails to undertake and which form a part of violating the negative duty not to harm. In relation to these global acts, it is straightforward for individuals both to recognize what they would need to do to avoid participating in the harm of global poverty and to achieve that avoidance: individuals simply need to provide financial aid. As such, assuming that individuals are culpable for the harms committed by intersecting global institutions, then their participation in harm also violates a negative duty not to inflict such harm. This opens up a further remedial duty to provide financial aid for past harms committed. (shrink)

Pro tanto duties are those that are defeasible. A tradition in ethics dating back to the 1930's explains this defeasibility by arguing that such duties are parti-resultant. Just what it means for a duty to be parti-resultant has never been really clear, however. Nor is it obvious just how parti-resultantness is supposed to account for defeasibility. This article contends thar such an approach is simply mistaken.

I argue that riskier killings of innocent people are, other things equal, objectively worse than less risky killings. I ground these views in considerations of disrespect and security. Killing someone more riskily shows greater disrespect for him by more grievously undervaluing his standing and interests, and more seriously undermines his security by exposing a disposition to harm him across all counterfactual scenarios in which the probability of killing an innocent person is that high or less. I argue that the salient (...) probabilities are the agent’s sincere, sane, subjective probabilities, and that this thesis is relevant whether your risk-taking pertains to the probability of killing a person or to the probability that the person you kill is not liable to be killed. I then defend the view’s relevance to intentional killing; show how it differs from an account of blameworthiness; and explain its significance for all-things-considered justification and justification under uncertainty. (shrink)

Is there a pro tanto moral reason to create a life merely because it would be good for the person living it? Proponents of the procreation asymmetry claim there is not. Defending this controversial no reason claim, some have suggested that it is well in line with other phenomena in the moral realm: there is no reason to give a promise merely because one would keep it, and there is no reason to procreate merely to increase the extent of (...) justice in the world. Allegedly, some analogs extend so far as to support a unified theory of the no reason claim and the nonidentity thesis, that is, the view that of two persons leading lives of positive wellbeing, there is a reason to create the person with higher wellbeing. I dismantle the proposed analogs and show that they fail to meet various desiderata. Moreover, I refute Johann Frick's argument that the no reason claim follows from the assumption that reasons of beneficence are reasons to act for the sake of people. By criticizing attractive defenses for the no reason claim, I weaken its plausibility. (shrink)

This chapter contains a detailed discussion of the counterfactual comparative account of harm, according to which an event harms a person provided that she would have been better off, on balance, if it had not occurred. It provides a general version of the account for overall, all-things-considered, harm, and it provides a version that accounts for harm at a time. It discusses how advocates of the counterfactual comparative account should think about pro tanto harm. It then considers objections to (...) the general account and offers responses to some of them. (Subsequent chapters in the book focus on the more serious objections and issues that relate to them.) Finally, it considers several accounts of harm that compete with the counterfactual comparative account and discusses the most substantial challenges for the competing views. (shrink)

Chapter 5 uses the Huckleberry Finn to illustrate how explanations of an agent’s behavior can tell us which rational norms are overriding. Those most saliently in play in the example turn out to be good candidates for some of the most important moral norms. These verdicts about motivating reasons generate reasons to regard these considerations as genuinely normative and weighty. They are substantive and even run counter to formal norms of coherence such as the Enkratic Principle. They are substantive rational (...) norms of the sort moral rationalism requires, and they are central to rationality. The chapter also makes a case for treating rational norms as pro tanto and for thinking of ideal rationality as an idealization of norms that apply even in situations where an agent is far from rationally ideal. An appendix develops some considerations supporting this way of thinking about rationality and not over-idealizing. (shrink)

If it is pro tanto wrong to j, then intuitively an agent acts wrongly if, without adequate justification, he _tries_ to j.Yet it can seem puzzling why this should be so. Just because the act type j_ing_ possesses some wrong-making feature, why should it automatically follow that the distinct act type _trying to_ j (or equivalently, _doing something with the intention of thereby_ j_ing_) likewise possesses some wrong-making feature?The mistake is to assume that if an agent has acted wrongly, (...) this can only be because he has _done_ something that it was wrong to do. But an agent can also have acted wrongly because he was, for a time, _doing_ something that it was wrong to do (even if he never completed the act), or because he was, for a time, _attempting to do_ something that it was wrong to do (even if he never succeeded in doing it). The wrongness of jing can “directly” explain how it is that an agent who tried unsuccessfully to j acted wrongly; we needn’t suppose that the act type _trying to_ j possesses some wrong-making feature in its own right. (shrink)

This chapter discusses some varieties of harm, largely for the purpose of setting the stage for the rest of the book. It discusses the distinction between intrinsic harm, or harm in virtue of the intrinsic properties of an event, and extrinsic harm. It also discusses the distinction between pro tanto harm, or harm in some respect, and overall harm or harm all things considered. This chapter also contains a preliminary discussion and evaluation of a basic version of the counterfactual (...) comparative account of harm and benefit. It also considers the notion of harm at a time—for example, harm in the short term—and previews some related issues about the harm of death. (shrink)

In this chapter a distinction is made between propositional and non-propositional knowledge and it is argued, against a number of critics, that works of literature typically convey propositional knowledge. There is a defence of the claim advanced in the previous chapter that the cognitive value of many works of literature is intimately connected with their having reference to the real world and advancing true statements about it. It is maintained that truth and falsity in the paraphrase of a work of (...) literature are pro tanto markers of aesthetic value and disvalue respectively. Finally, consideration is given to the status of contradictions in literature, and it is argued that that status is in all relevant respects comparable to their status in scientific discourse: the existence of a contradiction between two works of literature implies that one of them is false; and falsity in a work is, pro tanto, a blemish. (shrink)

This chapter investigates two phenomena where values plausibly interact within artworks. One is the case of purported aesthetic value ‘inversions’ within artworks. The other is the case of purported ethical-artistic value inversions within artworks. I hypothesize that one gets inversion in the valuable properties of artworks, when the properties in question are aesthetic properties. I will look for principles for evaluating artworks that best accommodate that fact of inversion. I will argue that there is a good candidate for such a (...) principle, but it is neither a pro tanto nor a prima facie principle as they are ordinarily conceived. I will finally argue that some proponents of ethical-artistic inversion do indeed treat it as a species of aesthetic inversion. (shrink)

This chapter presents a new, Kant-Inspired Account of the dignity of persons (KID). KID holds that dignity is a special status held by persons, according to which they ought not to be treated merely as means, but ought to be treated as having unconditional, transcendent worth. The chapter crystallizes the book’s account of treating others merely as means and explains the notion of worth that KID embraces. In order to clarify KID and underscore its plausibility, the chapter examines cases that (...) diminish the credibility of traditional Kantian accounts of dignity as well as cases concerning transplant surgeons and trolleys that feature in normative ethics. The chapter maintains that it is always _pro tanto_ wrong to fail to respect the dignity of persons, but that it is not always wrong all things considered to do so. The chapter explores when it is morally legitimate to fail to respect a person’s dignity. (shrink)

This chapter discusses the usual formulations of the three standard positions concerning the intrinsic issue: autonomism, moralism, and immoralism. It argues that some of these formulations are unsatisfactory, and that the best formulation of the more plausible positions in the debate is in terms of autonomism, ethicism, and contextualism. Ethicism holds that a work is always aesthetically flawed in so far as it possesses an aesthetically relevant ethical flaw. Contextualism holds that a work is sometimes aesthetically flawed in so far (...) as it possesses an aesthetically relevant ethical flaw, and is sometimes aesthetically meritorious in so far as it possesses an aesthetically relevant ethical flaw. The chapter also argues that these positions are best stated using pro tanto principles, rather than overall principles. (shrink)

‘Challenging Mooreanism’ puts forward some arguments against Mooreanism, the formal view that either final good-for is an incoherent value notion or, ultimately, at best a disguised reference to what is finally good. The chapter concludes that Mooreans bar us from making some evaluations, which, in principle, we should be able to endorse or reject on substantive grounds. Mooreanism is therefore in at least some respects, inferior to value dualism. The arguments focus on the so-called ‘localisation manoeuvre’, which Mooreans tend to (...) employ in order to argue that they can in fact make sense of some uses of ‘good for someone’. The general idea behind this manoeuvre is to reduce claims such as ‘x is good for _a_’ to claims about non-relational goodness located in _a_, or at least related to _a_ in some relevant way. Mooreans will not insist that this is always possible. Sometimes people are linguistically confused when they maintain that something is finally good for someone. However, sometimes speakers make sense even if they express themselves in terms of what is finally good for a person, and when that happens, they locate a non-relational good to the person. Or so the Mooreans argue. The arguments against Mooreanism turn on some evaluations referring to overall and _pro tanto_ values that Mooreanism qua formal value theory should be able to analyse. However, it is argued that the localisation manoeuvre cannot be applied to these evaluations. (shrink)

This chapter provides an overview of penal law that goes beyond the sketchy comments made so far. Section 13.1 contrasts penal law, based on forfeiture and unconcerned with blame, with criminal law, based on retributive desert and fundamentally concerned with blame. It argues that making this distinction is important for the integrity of the criminal law. This section ends with a review of why the penal law is different from administrative law. Section 13.2 handles three objections to the idea of (...) the penal law, the most important of which is that serious sanctions, such as imprisonment, unavoidably convey censure. Section 13.3 argues that penal law is not normally a mere pricing scheme; normally, penal violations are not to be performed. Section 13.4 argues that it is nonetheless true that there are times when a person may fairly be penalized even though his act is only a pro tanto wrong. The state may never impose a penal law penalty believing that is the case, but it may put the burden of proving justifications on defendants in a way that the criminal law may not. Defendants might sometimes fail to carry that burden and be penalized, even though their act is only pro tanto wrong. Section 13.5 argues that penal law should be limited to proxy crimes. Finally, Section 13.6 argues that it would be possible to start the reform process required to formally distinguish criminal and penal law. (shrink)

There are at least two threads in our thought and talk about rationality, both practical and theoretical. In one sense, to be rational is to respond correctly to the reasons one has. Call this substantive rationality. In another sense, to be rational is to be coherent, or to have the right structural relations hold between one’s mental states, independently of whether those attitudes are justified. Call this structural rationality. According to the standard view, structural rationality is associated with a distinctive (...) set of requirements that mandate or prohibit certain combinations of attitudes, and it’s in virtue of violating these requirements that incoherent agents are irrational. I think the standard view is mistaken. The goal of this paper is to explain why, and to motivate an alternative account: rather than corresponding to a set of law-like requirements, structural rationality should be seen as corresponding to a distinctive kind of pro tanto rational pressure—i.e. something that comes in degrees, having both magnitude and direction. Something similar is standardly assumed to be true of substantive rationality. On the resulting picture, each dimension of rational evaluation is associated with a distinct kind of rational pressure—substantive rationality with (what I call) justificatory pressure and structural rationality with attitudinal pressure. The former is generated by one’s reasons while the latter is generated by one’s attitudes. Requirements turn out to be at best a footnote in the theory of rationality. (shrink)

Political theorists have recently sought to replace the liberal, contractual theory of the firm with a political view that models the authority relation of employee to firm, and its appropriate regulation, on that of subject to state. This view is liable to serious difficulties, however, given existing discontinuities between corporate and civil authority as to their coerciveness, entry and exit conditions, scope, legal standing, and efficiency constraints. I here inspect these, and argue that, albeit in some cases significant, such discontinuities (...) fail to undermine the firm/state analogy, either because they are not significant enough to do so or because the particular trait on which they hinge is not decisive for how authority, in the state and in the firm, should be regulated to be legitimate. A pro tanto requirement exists, I thus argue, that corporate authority be held to regulatory norms comparable to those legitimate states abide by, including civil liberties, rule-of-law constraints, and accountability to subjects. (shrink)

I defend the following version of the ought-implies-can principle: (OIC) by virtue of conceptual necessity, an agent at a given time has an (objective, pro tanto) obligation to do only what the agent at that time has the ability and opportunity to do. In short, obligations correspond to ability plus opportunity. My argument has three premises: (1) obligations correspond to reasons for action; (2) reasons for action correspond to potential actions; (3) potential actions correspond to ability plus opportunity. In (...) the bulk of the paper I address six objections to OIC: three objections based on putative counterexamples, and three objections based on arguments to the effect that OIC conflicts with the is/ought thesis, the possibility of hard determinism, and the denial of the Principle of Alternate Possibilities. (shrink)

This essay focuses on conceptual engineers who aim to improve other people's patterns of inference and attention by shaping their concepts. Such conceptual engineers sometimes engage in a form of epistemic paternalism that I call paternalistic cognitive engineering: instead of explicitly persuading, informing and educating others, the engineers non-consultatively rely on assumptions about the target agents’ cognitive systems to improve their belief forming. The target agents could reasonably regard such benevolent exercises of control as violating their sovereignty over their own (...) belief formation. This is a pro tanto reason against such engineering. In addition to the relevant projects of conceptual engineering, paternalistic cognitive engineering plausibly includes certain kinds of nudging and evidence suppression. I distinguish the sovereignty-based concern from other ethical worries about conceptual engineering and discuss how one might justify the relevant conceptual engineering projects despite the sovereignty-based reason against them. (shrink)

Uniqueness appears to enhance intrinsic value. A unique stamp sells for millions of dollars; Stradivarius violins are all the more precious because they are unlike any others. This observation has not gone overlooked in the value theory literature: uniqueness plays a starring role recalibrating the dominant Moorean understanding of the nature of intrinsic value. But the thesis that uniqueness enhances intrinsic value is in tension with another deeply plausible and widely held thesis, namely the thesis that there is a pro (...) tanto reason to promote the good. It is argued that there is a second, distinct type of uniqueness that plays a more interesting and important axiological role: uniqueness imparts irreplaceable value. This gives occasion to develop the surprisingly undertheorized notion of irreplaceable value. (shrink)

Many seem to think that AI-induced responsibility gaps are morally bad and therefore ought to be avoided. We argue, by contrast, that there is at least a pro tanto reason to welcome responsibility gaps. The central reason is that it can be bad for people to be responsible for wrongdoing. This, we argue, gives us one reason to prefer automated decision-making over human decision-making, especially in contexts where the risks of wrongdoing are high. While we are not the first (...) to suggest that responsibility gaps should sometimes be welcomed, our argument is novel. Others have argued that responsibility gaps should sometimes be welcomed because they can reduce or eliminate the psychological burdens caused by tragic moral choice-situations. By contrast, our argument explains why responsibility gaps should sometimes be welcomed even in the absence of tragic moral choice-situations, and even in the absence of psychological burdens. (shrink)

The topic of fake news has received increased attention from philosophers since the term became a favorite of politicians (Habgood-Coote 2016; Dentith 2016). Notably missing from the conversation, however, is a discussion of fake news and conspiracy theory media as a market. This paper will take as its starting point the account of noxious markets put forward by Debra Satz (2010), and will argue that there is a pro tanto moral reason to restrict the market for fake news. Specifically, (...) we begin with Satz’s argument that restricting a market may be required when i) that market inhibits citizens from being able to stand in an equal relationship with one another, and ii) this problem cannot be solved without such direct restrictions. Our own argument then proceeds in three parts: first, we argue that the market for fake news fits Satz’s description of a noxious market; second, we argue against explanations of the proliferation of fake news that are couched in terms of “epistemic vice”, and likewise argue against prescribing critical thinking education as a solution to the problem; finally, we conclude that, in the absence of other solutions to mitigate the noxious effects of the fake news market, we have a pro tanto moral reason to impose restrictions on this market. At the end of the paper, we consider one proposal to regulate the fake news market, which involves making social media outlets potentially liable in civil court for damages caused by the fake news hosted on their websites. (shrink)

Exclusionary defeat is Joseph Raz’s proposal for understanding the more complex, layered structure of practical reasoning. Exclusionary reasons are widely appealed to in legal theory and consistently arise in many other areas of philosophy. They have also been subject to a variety of challenges. I propose a new account of exclusionary reasons based on their justificatory role, rejecting Raz’s motivational account and especially contrasting exclusion with undercutting defeat. I explain the appeal and coherence of exclusionary reasons by appeal to commonsense (...) value pluralism and the intermediate space of public policies, social roles, and organizations. We often want our choices to have a certain character or instantiate a certain value and in order to do so, that choice can only be based on a restricted set of reasons. Exclusion explains how pro tanto practical reasons can be disqualified from counting towards a choice of a particular kind without being outweighed or undercut. (shrink)

A prominent way of justifying civil disobedience is to postulate a pro tanto duty to obey the law and to argue that the considerations that ground this duty sometimes justify forms of civil disobedience. However, this view entails that certain kinds of uncivil disobedience are also justified. Thus, either a) civil disobedience is never justified or b) uncivil disobedience is sometimes justified. Since a) is implausible, we should accept b). I respond to the objection that this ignores the fact (...) that civil disobedience enjoys a special normative status on account of instantiating certain special features: nonviolence, publicity, the acceptance of legal consequences, and conscientiousness. I then show that my view is superior to two rivals: the view that we should expand the notion of civility and that civil disobedience, expansively construed, is uniquely appropriate; and the view that uncivil disobedience is justifiable in but only in unfavorable conditions. (shrink)