Christine Korsgaard which the normative question took shape in the debates of modern .. And that is the source of normativity.l3 So the argument shows. Christine M. Korsgaard, The Sources of Normativity (Cambridge: Cambridge reflection leads ineluctably to her endorsement of the source of moral claims. The Sources of Normativity has ratings and 12 reviews. Anthony said: Somewhere in the middle of this book you get the feeling that you may, in fact.
|Published (Last):||22 September 2016|
|PDF File Size:||7.20 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||10.96 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Goodreads helps you keep off of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Refresh and try again. Open Preview See a Problem? Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page. The Sources of Normativity by Christine M. Ethical concepts are, or purport to be, normative and make claims on us. This text identifies and examines four accounts of the source of normativity that have normatuvity advocated by modern moral philosophers–voluntarism, realism, reflective endorsement, and the appeal to autonomy.
Paperbackpages. To see what your friends nromativity of this book, please sign up. To ask other readers questions about The Sources of Normativityplease sign up. Be the first to ask a question about The Sources of Normativity. Lists with This Book. This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Jun 07, Anthony rated it it was amazing Recommends it for: Recommended to Anthony by: LG, Drew, DiClaudio, korsfaard. Somewhere in the middle of this book you get the feeling that you may, in fact, be a Kantian.
Thankfully, that goes away by the end, but at that point you’ve been overwhelmed by the excellent commentaries by Cohen, Guess, and Williams and to a less extent Nagel, although he mostly just confused me. Philosophy should always be in lecture form and always be this exciting. Oct 15, C rated it it was ok.
Korsgaard is attempting to develop a neo-kantian ethic.
The Sources of Normativity
Interestingly enough she does this both analytically and dialectically. Analytically in the sense that all her arguments are logical, and always attempting to contain a valid form. Dialectically, in that she is trying to take the good side out of voluntarism, emotivism, realism, etc.
Unfortunately the book largely fails, in my opinion. Korsgaard makes one too many logical leaps, in the traditional ca Korsgaard is attempting to develop a neo-kantian ethic.
Korsgaard makes one too many logical leaps, in the traditional callous Kantian sense, of thinking just because someone does reason X, they will and must do X.
Not they ought to do X, they must and will. This is a categorically different claim then the standard normative claim of one ought to do X, and it is one that is demonstrable false.
Summary: Korsgaard’s Sources of Normativity
But let’s start at the beginning and watch the failure unfold. First of all, Korsgaard wants to ask “the normative question,” that is, what justifies the claims morality makes on us. Because this question is found in reflective thought, the conclusion must be found there too.
Because our reflection distances us from the emotional and desirable route of action, this means we must act for reasons. I can rationally deliberate about X, and still choose to take the purely emotional route I would have taken, even if I had not deliberated.
For Korsgaard, our universal human nature is what allows us to all act reflectively. Like a psychological egoist, she is reading back into the action a mental framework that fits her theory, but at the moment of action X, it is not absolutely certain that the action was performed out of reason, and not emotion moments of love, and anxiety, attest to this. There are more reasons to criticize this work, but I might as well end here. If you’re interested in a neo-kantian argument, and one of the foremost neo-kantians, read her.
If you’re not, move along. View all 18 comments. Aug 22, Daniel Tovar rated it liked it. Like much of Korsgaard’s work, I found it interesting but seriously mistaken. Oct 26, Jocelyn foxonbooks rated it really liked it.
Korsgaard speaks in a clear, understandable way about exceptionally complex subjects. I don’t know to what extent I agree with her conclusions, but she has introduced many fascinating ideas about rationality, morality and where we might find normativity with this series of lectures. Oct 19, Joshua Stein rated it liked it Shelves: Korsgaard is a legend in modern ethics and meta-ethics, and this book is a pretty good illustration of why that is.
The arguments are succinct, poignant, and thoughtful; she considers a pretty wide range of possible views advanced throughout the 19th and 20th century ethics literature.
One of the challenges with the book, and it does weigh a bit on my review of the book, is that the language is often more obscure and technical than it needs to be, and dwells on a lot of references within the lit Korsgaard is a legend in modern ethics and meta-ethics, and this book is a pretty good illustration of why that is.
One of the challenges with the book, and it does weigh a bit on my review of the book, is that the language is often more obscure and technical than it needs to be, and dwells on a lot of references within the literature that give it the distinctive texture of academic writing. To a certain extent, that’s just a convention in the discipline, but it does really get in the way of some of the more interesting ideas.
As far as the important literature advancing Kantian ethics, Korsgaard is one of the authors who best exemplifies the appeal of Kantian views in contrast to a lot of the more modern consequentialist writers like Parfit and Singer.
Further, she defends the view in a way that is really close to the Kantian approach to argument, focussing on the self as a rational agent and working from there to talk about moral norms and obligations.
This approach to argument, and the fact that it is so succinct, makes me think that Korsgaard is probably under-read among a lot of modern ethicists; personally, I would prefer using her work to talk about Kantian senses eources obligations than a lot of the other writers, and try to set her up as a foil. Like a lot of what I read, I wouldn’t recommend the book to those outside of ethics. However, it is definitely normativitj that I would bookmark for teaching an upper-division undergraduate class at some point in the future.
Feb 01, Ross rated it really liked it. Your reasons express your identity, your nature; your obligations spring from what that identity forbids. That is, it is to no longer be able to think of yourself under the description under which you value yourself and find your life okrsgaard be worth living and normqtivity actions to be worth undertaking.
It is to be for all practical purposes dead or worse than dead. Korsgaard seeks to answer the “nor Your reasons express your identity, your nature; your obligations spring from what that identity forbids. Korsgaard seeks to answer the “normative question”: In addition to addressing how and why moral ideas can have important practical and psychological effects on nofmativity, she also attempts to justify granting this kind of importance to morality.
Her account is Kantian, with an emphasis on practical identity. The responses from Cohen, Nagel, Guess, and Williams fail to damage her project too much, before she provides a thorough soutces convincing reply in the final section of the book the benefit of being the author of the book, I suppose. Nagel’s objections seem to me the most convincing of the four, but it is worth reading The Sources soyrces Normativity for anyone who wants to decide for themselves.
Jan 07, Andrey Babitskiy rated it really liked it Shelves: Four lectures by a well-known philosopher, normativitty as a book, with critical commentaries by a few notable colleagues, namely, Thomas Nagel, Bernard Williams, GA Cohen, and Raymond Guess. Korsgaard has an agenda; she not only reviews sources of [moral] normativity proposed by her predecessors, but also tries to develop her own reflective approach, based on Kantian ideas.
Informative, analytical, and fun to read. The polemical part of the book is worth the time, too.
The Sources of Normativity by Christine M. Korsgaard
Jan 02, Blakely rated it really liked it. Made me think I was a Kantian because of its emphasis on the connection of morality with one’s self-concept. Jan 02, Ft. Sheridan rated it really liked it. Doesn’t seem like it works, but I still can’t wait for the sequel Jan 19, Jeremy rated it it was amazing. If I become a Kantian, Korsgaard’s the reason. Tyler Windham rated it it was amazing Apr 27, Robert Lee rated it really liked it Apr 04, Chris rated it really liked it Mar 28, Charles rated it it was amazing Nov 03, Usman Raza rated it really liked it Jun 24, Brian rated it liked it Apr 25, Angela rated it it was amazing Jan 02, JL Vanderhoek rated it really liked it Aug 25, Darbee Hagerty rated it it was amazing Feb 01, Jeppe von rated it it was amazing Mar 31, Steve rated it really liked it Nov 14, Roger Amafo rated it it was amazing Jun 28, Ketib Oldiais rated it really liked it Sep 04, Erin rated it it was ok Sep 22, Ian Spencer rated it really liked it Jan 06, Noah rated it really liked it Oct 13, Sun Liu rated it it was ok Jun 13, Reuben Mackey rated it it was amazing Oct 10,