Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLerm, Jessica
dc.date.accessioned2017-06-05T10:27:42Z
dc.date.available2017-06-05T10:27:42Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.identifier.citationLerm, J. (2013). The agent-relative/agent-neutral distinction: my two sense(s). South African Journal of Philosophy, 32(2): 137-148en_US
dc.identifier.issn0379-6175
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10566/2925
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02580136.2013.810033
dc.description.abstractThe agent-relative/agent-neutral distinction is very well established and widely employed in the metaethical literature. However, I argue that there are actually two different senses of the distinction at large: the hetero-/homogeneous sense and the dependence/independence sense. The traditional, unqualified distinction ought, therefore, to be amended, with each use of the distinction being stipulated as used in either the hetero-/homogeneous sense or the dependence/independence sense. Careful analysis of various metaethics supports that there are these two senses - analysis, in particular, of a neo-Kantian metaethic, according to which reasons are agent-relative in the dependence sense but agent-neutral in the homogeneous sense, and - perhaps surprisingly - of Utilitarianism, according to which reasons are agent-neutral in the independence sense but agent-relative in the heterogeneous sense.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherPhilosophical Society of Southern Africaen_US
dc.rightsThis is the author-version of the article published online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02580136.2013.810033
dc.subjectAgent-relativeen_US
dc.subjectAgent-neutralen_US
dc.subjectMetaethicalen_US
dc.subjectNeo-Kantianen_US
dc.titleThe agent-relative/agent-neutral distinction: my two sense(s)en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.privacy.showsubmitterFALSE
dc.status.ispeerreviewedTRUE
dc.description.accreditationDepartment of HE and Training approved list


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record