Recognition, Norms, and the Struggle for Normative Authority

2021 ◽  
pp. 135-183
Author(s):  
Suzanne Whitten
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Simon Robertson

Nietzsche is one of the most subversive ethical thinkers of the Western canon. This book offers a critical assessment of his ethical thought and its significance for contemporary moral philosophy. It develops a charitable but critical reading of his thought, pushing some claims and arguments as far as seems fruitful while rejecting others. But it also uses Nietzsche in dialogue with, so to contribute to, a range of long-standing issues within normative ethics, metaethics, value theory, practical reason, and moral psychology. The book is divided into three principal parts. Part I examines Nietzsche’s critique of morality, arguing that it raises well-motivated challenges to morality’s normative authority and value: his error theory about morality’s categoricity is in a better position than many contemporary versions; and his critique of moral values has bite even against undemanding moral theories, with significant implications not just for rarefied excellent types but also us. Part II turns to moral psychology, attributing to Nietzsche and defending a sentimentalist explanation of action and motivation. Part III considers his non-moral perfectionism, developing models of value and practical normativity that avoid difficulties facing many contemporary accounts and that may therefore be of wider interest. The discussion concludes by considering Nietzsche’s broader significance: as well as calling into question many of moral philosophy’s deepest assumptions, he challenges our usual views of what ethics itself is—and what it, and we, should be doing.


2016 ◽  
Vol 78 ◽  
pp. 147-160
Author(s):  
P. J. E. Kail

AbstractThis paper examines Hume’s ‘Title Principle’ (TP) and its role in a response to one of the ‘manifest contradictions’ he identifies in the conclusion to Book I of A Treatise on Human Nature. This ‘contradiction’ is a tension between two ‘equally natural and necessary’ principles of the imagination, our causal inferences and our propensity to believe in the continued and distinct existence of objects. The problem is that the consistent application of causal reason undercuts any grounds with have for the belief in continued and distinct existence, and yet that belief is as ‘natural and necessary’ as our propensity to infer effects from causes. The TP appears to offer a way to resolve this ‘contradiction’. It statesWhere reason is lively, and mixes itself with some propensity, it ought to be assented to. Where it does not, it never can have any title to operate upon us.’ (T 1.4.7.11; SBN 270)In brief, if it can be shown that the causal inferences that undermine the belief in external world are not ‘lively’ nor mixed with some propensity’ then we have grounds for think that they have no normative authority (they have no ‘title to operate on us). This is in part a response to another ‘manifest contradiction’, namely the apparently self-undermining nature of reason. In this paper I examine the nature and grounds of the TP and its relation to these ‘manifest contradictions’.


2018 ◽  
Vol 89 (3) ◽  
pp. 195-208
Author(s):  
Craig Ott

One of the primary tasks of local theology is to address questions and challenges that are context-specific but not explicitly addressed in the Bible. How can biblical authority be retained while attempting to answer questions, whereby the theologian is compelled to go beyond explicit biblical teaching? Ways of resolving the seeming tension between local theologizing and the normative authority of Scripture are addressed by examining three somewhat novel approaches to conceptualizing the theological process. The first is Paul G. Hiebert’s idea of critical realism and the analogy of maps. The second is Kevin J. Vanhoozer’s idea of theodrama and improvisation. The third is my own concept of game logic and strategy. Each of these three conceptualizations will be briefly described with particular attention to the task of local theologizing and biblical authority.


2019 ◽  
pp. 239-242
Author(s):  
Karen Stohr

This concluding chapter summarizes the main arguments of the book. In order for moral improvement to be a practical project, it must work from a psychologically plausible picture of human nature and it must rely on ideals that have normative authority and regulative efficacy for the person who is aiming to improve. The book argues that we should understand moral improvement as the cultivation of an aspirational moral identity. The cultivation of this identity takes place in social contexts that affect its trajectory. Moral improvement requires good moral neighborhoods, or normative structures that facilitate moral improvement by enabling us to enact fictive moral selves. In this way, moral neighborhoods help us close the gap between our moral ideals and the flawed reality in which we live.


Author(s):  
Angélica Maria Bernal

This chapter examines appeals to the authority of original founding events, founding ideals, and Founding Fathers in contemporary constitutional democracies. It argues that these “foundational invocations” reveal a window into the unique, albeit underexamined function that foundings play: as a vehicle of persuasion and legitimation. It organizes this examination around two of the most influential visions of founding in the US tradition: the originalist, situated in the discourses of conservative social movements such as the Tea Party and in conservative constitutional thought; and the promissory, situated in the discourses of social movements such as the civil rights movement. Though they might appear radically dissimilar, this chapter illustrates how these two influential conceptualizations of founding together reveal a shared political foundationalism that conflates the normative authority of a regime for its de facto one, thus circumscribing radical change by obscuring the past and placing founding invocations and their actors beyond question.


2019 ◽  
pp. 146954051988998 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marlyne Sahakian

With electricity-using appliances as the starting point, we seek to uncover the normative authority in the performance of practices among households in Western Switzerland. Through complementary methods, we explore normativity in practices that involve communicating and entertaining, cleaning and tidying up, and storing food and preparing meals. Combined with this approach is an understanding of emotions in practice, which are used as a heuristic device for uncovering how people performing practices feel that they are either aligned with how things ought or should be done, or conversely reveal any tensions in relation to the explicit or implicit normative authority. We see these points of tension as opportunities for change in designing experiments in a bounded space and time where practices can be performed differently – towards disconnecting, washing less, or sharing meal preparation and storage, for example. We conclude with discussions on the importance of enacting ‘deviant’ practices as performances and staging positive emotions, towards finding coherent ways to challenge the normative authority tied up with practices that rely on ‘more, bigger, better’ household appliances.


2019 ◽  
Vol 49 (6) ◽  
pp. 828-850 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Wodak

AbstractIt is commonly said that some standards, such as morality, are ‘normatively authoritative’ in a way that other standards, such as etiquette, are not; standards like etiquette are said to be ‘not really normative’. Skeptics deny the very possibility of normative authority, and take claims like ‘etiquette is not really normative’ to be either empty or confused. I offer a different route to defeat skeptics about authority: instead of focusing on what makes standards like morality special, we should focus on what makes standards like etiquette ‘not really normative’. I defend a fictionalist theory on which etiquette is ‘not really normative’ in roughly the same way that Sherlock is ‘not really a detective’, and show that fictionalism about some normative standards helps us explain the possibility of normative authority.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document