We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Moral rationalists have claimed a priori status for moral principles, including the commonsense principles described in Chapter 4. Intuitionists – prominently including Ross – have even claimed self-evidence for such principles. How can this claim be justified? Central to the case is the idea that normative properties are a priori grounded in certain non-normative natural properties. This chapter explains such grounding. In doing so, it distinguishes two kinds of normativity: a kind belonging to a priori grounds of obligation, e.g. promising – normativity in upshot – and another belonging to propositions, such as moral judgments, that employ normative concepts: this is normativity in content. The chapter shows how the commonsense principles control critical discourse in the constitutive ways appropriate to entrenched a priori generalizations. It also shows how their apriority squares with the empiricality of singular moral judgments and how, even where obligations conflict, singular judgments of overall obligation may be justified and known.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.