Abstract

Relying mostly on his Agony Argument, Derek Parfit argued against all the theories that take reasons for acting as based on the agent’s attitudes. I use R. M. Hare’s so-called “Conditional Reflection Principle” –here relabeled as “Mirror Principle” – to challenge Parfit’s contention that subjectivists about reasons cannot consistently endorse the view that “we all have a reason to want to avoid, and to try to avoid, all future agony.” Several objections to the Mirror Principle are examined and shown to result from incorrect interpretations of its content.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call