more on this theme | more from this thinker
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.
| 23433 | Humans need courage like a plant needs roots [Foot] |
| 23431 | Human defects are just like plant or animal defects [Foot] |
| 23432 | Concepts such as function, welfare, flourishing and interests only apply to living things [Foot] |
| 23434 | There is no fact-value gap in 'owls should see in the dark' [Foot] |
| 23435 | If you demonstrate the reason to act, there is no further question of 'why should I?' [Foot] |
| 23436 | It is an odd Humean view to think a reason to act must always involve caring [Foot] |
| 23438 | Full rationality must include morality [Foot] |
| 23437 | Practical reason is goodness in choosing actions [Foot] |
| 23439 | Principles are not ultimate, but arise from the necessities of human life [Foot] |