more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
You lose the sense of 'should' if you go on saying 'why should I?' when you've finished the argument about what is rational to do, what you've got reason to do.
Gist of Idea
If you demonstrate the reason to act, there is no further question of 'why should I?'
Source
Philippa Foot (Interview with Philippa Foot [2003], P.34)
Book Ref
-: 'Philosophy Now' [-], p.34
A Reaction
Some people reify the concept of duty, so that they do what is required without caring about the reason. I suppose that would wither if they were shown that no reason exists.
| 21455 | We only understand what exists, and can find no sign of what ought to be in nature [Kant] |
| 23883 | Minds essentially and always strive towards value [Weil] |
| 23435 | If you demonstrate the reason to act, there is no further question of 'why should I?' [Foot] |
| 5336 | Ethics is the science of the conditions that lead to human flourishing [Flanagan] |
| 18497 | Many reject 'moral realism' because they can't see any truthmakers for normative judgements [Heil] |
| 18668 | Truths about value entail normative truths about actions or attitudes [Orsi] |
| 18670 | The Buck-Passing view of normative values says other properties are reasons for the value [Orsi] |
| 18669 | Values can be normative in the Fitting Attitude account, where 'good' means fitting favouring [Orsi] |