Consequences of Reasoning with Conflicting Obligations

Citation data:

Mind, ISSN: 0026-4423, Vol: 123, Issue: 491, Page: 753-790

Publication Year:
2014
Usage 133
Abstract Views 59
HTML Views 45
Downloads 24
Link-outs 5
Captures 20
Exports-Saves 12
Readers 8
Citations 4
Citation Indexes 4
Repository URL:
http://works.bepress.com/shyamnair/5/, http://works.bepress.com/shyamnair/5, http://commons.ln.edu.hk/sw_master/3107
DOI:
10.1093/mind/fzu085
Author(s):
NAIR, Gopal Shyam
Publisher(s):
Oxford University Press (OUP)
article description
Since at least the 1960s, deontic logicians and ethicists have worried about whether there can be normative systems that allow conflicting obligations. Surprisingly, however, little direct attention has been paid to questions about how we may reason with conflicting obligations. In this paper, I present a problem for making sense of reasoning with conflicting obligations and argue that no deontic logic can solve this problem. I then develop an account of reasoning based on the popular idea in ethics that reasons explain obligations and show that it solves this problem.

This article has 0 Wikipedia mention.