{"title":"有哪些表面上的责任?","authors":"D. Phillips","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780190602185.003.0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter interprets and defend Ross’s rejection of consequentialism and his endorsement of a moderate deontological position. It focuses particularly on what he says about promises, the special obligations he discusses most fully. It is argued that Ross treats promises as agent-relative intensifiers of reasons to promote goods; that there are other important kinds of agent-relative intensifiers recognized by Sidgwick but not by Ross; and that, unlike deontological constraints, agent-relative intensifiers are not puzzling or problematic. It is then argued, contra Robert Audi, that Ross should be interpreted as a classical deontologist rather than as a value-based intuitionist. And it is argued finally that Ross’s limited pluralism should be preferred to Jonathan Dancy’s particularism.","PeriodicalId":267783,"journal":{"name":"Rossian Ethics","volume":"27 24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What Prima Facie Duties Are There?\",\"authors\":\"D. Phillips\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/OSO/9780190602185.003.0003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter interprets and defend Ross’s rejection of consequentialism and his endorsement of a moderate deontological position. It focuses particularly on what he says about promises, the special obligations he discusses most fully. It is argued that Ross treats promises as agent-relative intensifiers of reasons to promote goods; that there are other important kinds of agent-relative intensifiers recognized by Sidgwick but not by Ross; and that, unlike deontological constraints, agent-relative intensifiers are not puzzling or problematic. It is then argued, contra Robert Audi, that Ross should be interpreted as a classical deontologist rather than as a value-based intuitionist. And it is argued finally that Ross’s limited pluralism should be preferred to Jonathan Dancy’s particularism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":267783,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Rossian Ethics\",\"volume\":\"27 24 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-07-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Rossian Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780190602185.003.0003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rossian Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780190602185.003.0003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
This chapter interprets and defend Ross’s rejection of consequentialism and his endorsement of a moderate deontological position. It focuses particularly on what he says about promises, the special obligations he discusses most fully. It is argued that Ross treats promises as agent-relative intensifiers of reasons to promote goods; that there are other important kinds of agent-relative intensifiers recognized by Sidgwick but not by Ross; and that, unlike deontological constraints, agent-relative intensifiers are not puzzling or problematic. It is then argued, contra Robert Audi, that Ross should be interpreted as a classical deontologist rather than as a value-based intuitionist. And it is argued finally that Ross’s limited pluralism should be preferred to Jonathan Dancy’s particularism.