scholarly journals Moral Advice and Joint Agency

Author(s):  
Eric Wiland

There are many alleged problems with trusting another person’s moral testimony, perhaps the most prominent of which is that it fails to deliver moral understanding. Without moral understanding, one cannot do the right thing for the right reason, and so acting on trusted moral testimony lacks moral worth. This chapter, however, argues that moral advice differs from moral testimony, differs from it in a way that enables a defender of moral advice to parry this worry about moral worth. The basic idea is that an advisor and an advisee can together constitute a joint agent, and that this joint agent’s action can indeed have moral worth. So while the advisee himself might not do the right thing for the right reason (this because all alone he lacks the right reason), and while the advisor herself might not do the right thing for the right reason (this because all alone she does not do the right thing), they together do the right thing for the right reason.

2021 ◽  
pp. 130-166
Author(s):  
Eric Wiland

This final chapter aims to show that the actions of those who trust moral advice can have moral worth. Some adviser-advisee duos are joint agents. The activity of this joint agent displays moral understanding, autonomy, and all the other goods had by individual moral agents. To show this, this chapter argues 1) that highly informal duos can exhibit joint agency, 2) that joint agents can be constituted by individuals whose contributions are highly idiosyncratic, 3) that a commander and a commandee can exhibit joint agency, 4) that an adviser and an advisee can likewise exhibit joint agency, and finally 5) that their actions can be morally evaluated and have moral worth. This chapter ends with a conclusion about the value of studying plural agency.


Utilitas ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 117-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
NATHANIEL SHARADIN

Sometimes, agents do the right thing for the right reason. What's the normative significance of this phenomenon? According to proponents of the special status view, when an agent acts for the right reason, her actions enjoy a special normative status, namely, worthiness. Proponents of this view claim that self-effacing forms of consequentialism cannot say this plausible thing, and, worse, are blocked from having a perspicuous view of matters by the self-effacing nature of their consequentialism. In this article, I argue that this claim is based on an illicit assumption. I show that whatever version of the special status view proponents of that view prefer, self-effacing consequentialists can adopt a version of it. Moreover, I show that proponents of extant versions of the special status view have reason to prefer the specific version of that view I articulate on behalf of self-effacing consequentialists.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rannu Sanderan

Christian Education has been trapped mere formality. Instead, it’s has a huge responsibility on growing up the morality of a certain person or a community. Morality is a matter of values. Sometimes, many of us have no real idea of the right thing to do. Therefore we need the moral knowlegde to tell us what is the right thing to do. This study is an effort to emphasize the general way in which morality and moral are used. The explanation is necessary because of the many different definitions that exist for these terms, especially in relation to the concepts of ethics. Generallly, in this study, ethics and moral is treat as synonym, which means that the using of moral or morality does not imply any demarcation from ethical or ethics. God wants his people to do the right thing by the right reason. These right act and behaviour is motivated by intention of a heart that wants to please God only.


2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth Boyd

AbstractIt is has been argued that there is a problem with moral testimony: testimony is deferential, and basing judgments and actions on deferentially acquired knowledge prevents them from having moral worth. What morality perhaps requires of us, then, is that we understand why a proposition is true, but this is something that cannot be acquired through testimony. I argue here that testimony can be both deferential as well as cooperative, and that one can acquire moral understanding through cooperative testimony. The problem of moral testimony is thus not a problem with testimony generally, but a problem of deferential testimony specifically.


Author(s):  
Cynda Hylton Rushton ◽  
Alfred W. Kaszniak ◽  
Roshi Joan S. Halifax

Developing the capacities that help clinicians recognize moral adversity and suffering in their daily work and efforts to support them to design and practice strategies that protect their integrity at the heart of clinical practice. These capacities include knowing fundamental values, cultivating mindful awareness and self-attunement, cultivating reflection and insight, developing moral and ethical efficacy, engaging in activities that support self-stewardship, and engaging in ongoing, transformational learning. Each of these capacities must be intentionally cultivated and practiced. Clinicians can begin wherever they are to explore each of them in a synergistic manner. They are enabled by a culture that encourages clinicians to regularly do the right thing for the right reason without fear of reprisal.


1989 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 35-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Doherty

CFA Magazine ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 13-14
Author(s):  
Crystal Detamore
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Curtis L. Wesley ◽  
Gregory W. Martin ◽  
Darryl B. Rice ◽  
Connor J. Lubojacky

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document