On a Kantian Form of Respect

In this essay, Stephen Darwall first develops a rich set of distinctions of different forms of respect that supplement the fundamental distinction of recognition and appraisal respect. He then applies it to Kant’s dictum from The Critique of Practical Reason that “before a common humble man … my spirit bows.” Darwall is particularly interested in what Kant says about the phenomenology of respect: how it occurs, how it feels, and the like. The framework Darwall developed earlier, allows him to show how respect as a moral feeling is not only a form of appraisal but also recognition respect, and how the moral feeling of respect relates to other forms, such as “social respect” and “honor respect.”

Does Darwall’s Morality of Accountability Require Moral Realism? (And Would It Be Strengthened by Adding God to the Story?)

Stephen Darwall has developed an account of moral obligations as grounded in “second-personal reasons,” which was developed in conversation with early modern “theological voluntarists” who were divine command theorists. For Darwall, morality does not require accountability to God; humans as autonomous moral agents are the source of moral obligations. In this paper, I try to show that Darwall is vulnerable to some objections made against divine command theories. There are responses Darwall could make that have parallels to those given by divine command theorists. However, those responses require moral realism, while Darwall’s project is often seen as being inspired by metaethical constructivism. Finally, I suggest that Darwall’s view could be further strengthened by the addition of God to the story.

Dignidade humana em Adam Smith: a conciliação entre liberalismo e moral

A visão mainstream do século XX sugere que o filósofo e economista escocês Adam Smith fez uma defesa de teoria liberal pautada exclusivamente no individualismo tout court e no puro cálculo racional da economia. Sob essa ótica, liberalismo e ética sentimentalista seriam elementos totalmente dissociados e independentes no pensamento smithiano. Entretanto, consideramos que esta é uma interpretação enviesada que desconsidera a leitura conjunta de suas obras centrais The theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) e Wealth of Nations (1776), o que inviabiliza uma compreensão global do seu pensamento. Contra essa visão dominante, propomos, como objetivo central do presente artigo, a conciliação entre liberalismo clássico smithiano e sua ética sentimentalista, a partir da noção de dignidade humana presente no reconhecimento do outro como um igual. Se esta hipótese estiver correta, defenderemos a tese de um liberalismo simpático no sistema filosófico de Adam Smith. Para isso, inicialmente, analisaremos o sentimento de simpatia smithiano e sua interferência nas relações interpessoais e, em seguida, o dispositivo de justificação moral da imparcialidade enquanto promotora de comportamentos justos. Por fim, sustentaremos que o entrelaçamento desses dois elementos da ética sentimentalista smithiana, no espaço público, engendra uma noção de dignidade humana compatível com o seu liberalismo, na medida em que respeita as liberdades individuais ao mesmo tempo em que propicia o progresso das sociedades comerciais. Para isso, utilizaremos como fios condutores dessa pesquisa, a obra de Adam Smith Theory of Moral Sentiments e a análise interpretativa do filósofo norte-americano Stephen Darwall no artigo Sympathetic Liberalism: Recent Work on Adam Smith .

Obrigação, autoridade e demanda moral

O artigo discute a relação entre obrigação e autoridade moral a partir da pressuposição endossada por Peter Strawson, R. Jay Wallace e Stephen Darwall de que moralidade se constitui como um contexto normativo relacional. Depois de destacar o problema, analiso o papel preponderante que culpa moral e atitudes reativas negativas possuem para determinar aquilo que constitui a erradez moral de uma ação. Isso posto, abordarei os tipos de obrigação moral que podemos extrair deste modelo e sua relação com o que chamarei de coeficiente de autoridade. Por fim, questiono o resultado dessa relação e apresento considerações que desafiam essa estratégia.

Shame and the Scope of Moral Accountability

It is widely agreed that reactive attitudes play a central role in our practices concerned with holding people responsible. However, it remains controversial which emotional attitudes count as reactive attitudes such that they are eligible for this central role. Specifically, though theorists near universally agree that guilt is a reactive attitude, they are much more hesitant on whether to also include shame. This paper presents novel arguments for the view that shame is a reactive attitude. The arguments also support the view that shame is a reactive attitude in the sense that concerns moral accountability. The discussion thereby challenges both the view that shame is not a reactive attitude at all, suggested by philosophers such as R. Jay Wallace and Stephen Darwall, and the view that shame is a reactive attitude but does not concern moral accountability, recently defended by Andreas Carlsson and Douglas Portmore.

Legitimate Political Authority and Expertise

Can legitimate political authority be based on expertise? Stephen Darwall has argued that it cannot. According to Darwall, legitimate political authority requires a mode of justification involving mutual accountability, which is exemplified by public reason. Darwall has objected to the influential Razian account of legitimate political authority that it conflates expertise and legitimate political authority. In a first move, this chapter defends Raz’s account against Darwall’s objection and argues that expertise can be a ground of legitimate political authority. It also argues that mutual accountability remains important for political legitimacy, however. That is because political decisions often concern complex issues on which sufficiently robust expertise is not available.

The Radical Demand in Løgstrup's Ethics

This book focuses on the ethics of the Danish philosopher and theologian K. E. Løgstrup (1905–81), and in particular on his key text The Ethical Demand (1956). The first part of the book provides a commentary on The Ethical Demand. The second part contains chapters on Løgstrup as a natural law theorist; his critique of Kant and Kierkegaard; his relation to Levinas; the difference between his position and the second-person ethics of Stephen Darwall; and the role of Luther in Løgstrup’s thinking. Overall, it is argued that Løgstrup rejects accounts of ethical obligation based on the commands of God, or on abstract principles governing practical reason, or on social norms; instead he develops a different picture, at the basis of which is our interdependence, which he argues gives his ethics a grounding in the nature of life itself. The book claims that Løgstrup offers a distinctive and attractive account of our moral obligation to others, which fits into the natural law tradition.

Dealing with Darwall

This chapter contrasts Løgstrup’s position with the account of moral obligation offered by Stephen Darwall, which bases obligation on second-personal authority. The chapter begins by setting out Darwall’s position (§10.1). It then focuses on three respects in which he could seem to claim an advantage over Løgstrup: namely, in the way he links obligations to rights; in the place he gives to respect for autonomy in his account; and in the greater explanatory resources he has available to make sense of the idea of moral obligation (§10.2). The chapter then considers responses that Løgstrup might give to these challenges (§10.3), arguing that Løgstrup’s objection to the command account of obligation is also telling against Darwall.

Rights and Demands

This book is the first extended treatment of demand-rights, a class of rights apt to be considered rights par excellence. Centrally, to have a demand-right is to have the standing or authority to demand a particular action from another person, who has a correlative obligation to the right-holder. How are demand-rights possible? Linking its response to central themes and positions within rights theory, Rights and Demands argues for two main theses. First, joint commitment, in a sense that is explained, is a ground of demand-rights. Second, it may well be their only ground. The first thesis is developed with special reference to agreements and promises, generally understood to ground demand-rights. It argues that both of these phenomena are constituted by joint commitments, and that this is true of many other central social phenomena also. In relation to the second thesis it considers the possibility of demand-rights whose existence can be demonstrated by moral argument without appeal to any joint commitment, and the possibility of accruing demand-rights through the existence of a given legal system or other institution construed without any such appeal. The relevance of the book’s conclusions to our understanding of human rights is then explained. Classic and contemporary rights theorists whose work is discussed include Wesley Hohfeld, H. L. A. Hart, Joel Feinberg, Immanuel Kant, Thomas Scanlon, Judith Thomson, Joseph Raz, and Stephen Darwall.