Embracing self‐defeat in normative theory

Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 109 (1):204-225 (2024)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Some normative theories are self-defeating. They tell us to respond to our situations in ways that bring about outcomes that are bad, given the aims of the theories, and which could have been avoided. Across a wide range of debates in ethics, decision theory, political philosophy, and formal epistemology, many philosophers treat the fact that a normative theory is self-defeating as sufficient grounds for rejecting it. I argue that this widespread and consequential assumption is false. In particular, I argue that a theory can be self-defeating and still internally consistent, action-guiding, and suitable as a standard for criticism.

Other Versions

No versions found

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-09-29

Downloads
592 (#44,670)

6 months
224 (#12,039)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Samuel Fullhart
Princeton University

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

Why We Should Reject S.Derek Parfit - 1984 - In Reasons and Persons. Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press.
Alienation, consequentialism, and the demands of morality.Peter Railton - 1984 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 13 (2):134-171.
Rationality and Dynamic Choice: Foundational Explorations.Edward Francis McClennen - 1990 - Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
The Concept of Moral Obligation.Michael J. Zimmerman - 1996 - New York: Cambridge University Press.

View all 45 references / Add more references