Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:33:03.344Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reid on the Autonomy of Ethics: From Active Power to Moral Nonnaturalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2017

TERENCE CUNEO  and
RANDALL HARP
TERENCE CUNEO
Affiliation:
UNIVERSITY OF VERMONTtcuneo@uvm.edu
RANDALL HARP
Affiliation:
UNIVERSITY OF VERMONTtcuneo@uvm.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Thomas Reid has the unusual distinction of arriving at a metaethical position very much like G. E. Moore's via a route very similar to that employed by the Kantians. That is, Reid embraces a version of nonnaturalist moral realism by appeal not to open question-style considerations but to a particular account of agency. In this essay, we reconstruct Reid's agency-centered argument for his constitutivist version of moral nonnaturalism, highlighting its commitments. Having presented Reid's argument, we close by considering a prominent contemporary Kantian view, namely, Christine Korsgaard's, and identifying where, despite their common commitments, Reid and Korsgaard part company. The comparison, we suggest, is instructive because it allows us to see more clearly why the link between agency-centered approaches to ethical theorizing and nonrealist, constitutivist views of morality, such as Korsgaard's, is deeply contingent.

Keywords

history of ethicsagencyactionmetaethicsReidactive powermoral nonnaturalism
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the American Philosophical Association , Volume 2 , Issue 4 , Winter 2016 , pp. 523 - 541
Copyright
Copyright © American Philosophical Association 2017 

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

Callergård, Robert. (2010) ‘Thomas Reid's Newtonian Theism: His Differences with the Classical Arguments of Richard Bentley and William Whitson’. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 41, 109–19.Google Scholar
Clarke, Samuel. (1998) A Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God and Other Writings. Edited by Vailati, Ezio. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cuneo, Terence. (2004) ‘Reid's Moral Philosophy’. In Cuneo, Terence and van Woudenberg, René (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Thomas Reid (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press), 243–66.Google Scholar
Cuneo, Terence, and Harp, Randall. (2016) ‘Thomas Reid’. In Timpe, Kevin, Griffith, Meghan, and Levy, Neil (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Free Will (New York: Routledge), 332–42.Google Scholar
Cuneo, Terence, and Harp, Randall. (2014) ‘Critical Review of Christine Korsgaard, Self-Constitution’ . Journal of Moral Philosophy, 11, 97–110 Google Scholar
Darwall, Stephen. (1995) The British Moralists and the Internal ‘Ought’. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Enoch, David. (2011) Taking Morality Seriously. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ferrero, Luca. (2009) ‘Constitutivism and the Inescapability of Agency’. In Shafer-Landau, Russ (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaethics, 4, 304–33.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry. (1991) ‘A Modal Argument for Narrow Content’. Journal of Philosophy, 88, 5–26.Google Scholar
Gill, Michael. (2006) The British Moralists on Human Nature and the Birth of Secular Ethics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, James. (2005) Of Liberty and Necessity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katsafanas, Paul. (2013) Agency and the Foundations of Ethics: Nietzschean Constitutivism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine. (n.d.) ‘Animal Selves and the Good’.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine. (2009) Self-Constitution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine. (1996) The Sources of Normativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Moore, G. E. (1903/1993) Principia Ethica. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McNaughton, David. (2013) ‘Butler's Ethics’. In Crisp, Roger (ed.), The Oxford Handbook to the History of Ethics (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 377–98.Google Scholar
Price, Richard. (1787/1948) A Review of the Principal Questions in Morals. Edited by Raphael, D. D.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reid, Thomas. (1788/2010) Essays on the Active Powers of the Human Mind. Edited by Haakonssen, Knud and Harris, James. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press (abbreviated as EAP).Google Scholar
Reid, Thomas. (1785/2002) Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man. Edited by Brookes, Derek R.. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press (abbreviated as EIP).Google Scholar
Reid, Thomas. (2002) The Correspondence of Thomas Reid. Edited by Paul, Wood. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Reid, Thomas. (1995) Thomas Reid on the Animate Creation: Papers Relating to the Life Sciences. Edited by Paul, Wood. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Velleman, J. D. (1992) ‘What Happens When Someone Acts?’ Mind, 101, 461–81.Google Scholar
Velleman, J. D. (2009) How We Get Along. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walden, Kenny. (2012) ‘Laws of Nature, Laws of Freedom, and the Social Construction of Normativity’. In Shafer-Landau, Russ (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaethics, 7, 37–79.Google Scholar
Wiggins, David. (1993) ‘A Neglected Position?’ In Haldane, John and Wright, Crispin (eds.), Reality, Representation and Projection (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 329–38.Google Scholar
Wood, Paul. (2004) ‘Thomas Reid and the Culture of Science’. In Cuneo, Terence and van Woudenberg, René (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Reid (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press), 53–76.Google Scholar
Yaffe, Gideon, (2004) Manifest Activity: Thomas Reid's Theory of Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar