Abstract
Monists, pluralists, and particularists disagree about the structure of the best explanation of the rightness (wrongness) of actions. In this paper I argue that the availability of good moral advice gives us reason to prefer particularist theories and pluralist theories to monist theories. First, I identify two distinct roles of moral theorizing-explaining the rightness (wrongness) of actions, and providing moral advice-and I explain how these two roles are related. Next, I explain what monists, pluralists, and particularists disagree about. Finally, I argue that particularists and pluralists are better situated than monists to explain why it is a good idea to think before we act, and that this gives us reason to favor particularism and pluralism over monism.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 349-359 |
Number of pages | 11 |
Journal | Philosophical Studies |
Volume | 146 |
Issue number | 3 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - 1 Nov 2009 |
Externally published | Yes |
Keywords
- Generalism
- Monism
- Moral guidance
- Particularism
- Pluralism
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Philosophy