Violations of non-native invariance: Some thoughts on shifty oughts
It seems paradoxical to say that an action's normative status - whether it is right, wrong, or obligatory - depends on whether or not it is performed. In this paper, I shall argue that in itself this dependency is not paradoxical. I shall argue that we should not reject a normative theory just...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2007
|
| _version_ | 1797061508236050432 |
|---|---|
| author | Bykvist, K |
| author_facet | Bykvist, K |
| author_sort | Bykvist, K |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | It seems paradoxical to say that an action's normative status - whether it is right, wrong, or obligatory - depends on whether or not it is performed. In this paper, I shall argue that in itself this dependency is not paradoxical. I shall argue that we should not reject a normative theory just because it implies this kind of dependency. Not all dependencies of this kind are bad, or at least not bad enough to warrant wholesale rejection. Instead, we should reject a theory when this dependency makes it a poor guide to action, in particular, when the dependency makes it impossible for agents to comply with the theory. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-06T20:32:10Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:316a8e03-3859-49a8-9519-34eab158725c |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-06T20:32:10Z |
| publishDate | 2007 |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:316a8e03-3859-49a8-9519-34eab158725c2022-03-26T13:07:52ZViolations of non-native invariance: Some thoughts on shifty oughtsJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:316a8e03-3859-49a8-9519-34eab158725cEnglishSymplectic Elements at Oxford2007Bykvist, KIt seems paradoxical to say that an action's normative status - whether it is right, wrong, or obligatory - depends on whether or not it is performed. In this paper, I shall argue that in itself this dependency is not paradoxical. I shall argue that we should not reject a normative theory just because it implies this kind of dependency. Not all dependencies of this kind are bad, or at least not bad enough to warrant wholesale rejection. Instead, we should reject a theory when this dependency makes it a poor guide to action, in particular, when the dependency makes it impossible for agents to comply with the theory. |
| spellingShingle | Bykvist, K Violations of non-native invariance: Some thoughts on shifty oughts |
| title | Violations of non-native invariance: Some thoughts on shifty oughts |
| title_full | Violations of non-native invariance: Some thoughts on shifty oughts |
| title_fullStr | Violations of non-native invariance: Some thoughts on shifty oughts |
| title_full_unstemmed | Violations of non-native invariance: Some thoughts on shifty oughts |
| title_short | Violations of non-native invariance: Some thoughts on shifty oughts |
| title_sort | violations of non native invariance some thoughts on shifty oughts |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT bykvistk violationsofnonnativeinvariancesomethoughtsonshiftyoughts |