Deference to experts is normal in many areas of inquiry, but suspicious in morality. This is puzzling if one thinks that morality is relevantly like those other areas of inquiry. We argue that this suspiciousness can be explained in terms of the suspiciousness of deferring to an epistemic peer. We then argue that this explanation is preferable to others in the literature, and explore some metaethical implications of this result.

According to the moral encroachment thesis, moral features of a situation can affect not just what we’re practically justified in doing but also what we’re epistemically justified in believing. This paper offers a new rationale for that thesis, drawing on observations about the role of reflection in agency.

In virtue of what do some considerations count in favor or against actions? Some philosophers have recently been interested in hybrid answers to this question. For instance, it might be that some facts about reasons are brute, and some are explained in terms of agents’ acts of will. Such views face a challenge: they need a story about how reasons grounded in one way combine with reasons grounded in other ways to yield overall verdicts about what to do. This paper (...) assesses the two most prominent accounts of how that happens, and offers an alternative that captures what's most plausible about each. (shrink)

Regress arguments show that to do something for a reason, one does not have to have reflectively endorsed that reason. This might seem to establish that reflection does not play a fundamental role in agency. This paper argues that this conclusion rests on too narrow a conception of agency. If agents are not just creatures who act for reasons but also creatures who can take ownership of the reasons for which they act, then there is a central role for reflection (...) to play in agency even if it's not the role that philosophers of action have typically envisioned for it. (shrink)

Some of our talk and thought is descriptive; it attempts to say how the world is. Some of our talk and thought is normative; it attempts to say how the world should be. This dissertation addresses the relationship between those two domains. Specifically, I investigate the question: in virtue of what do some descriptive considerations have the normative status of reasons for action? Philosophers working on this question have tended to defend three possible answers: that considerations are reasons in virtue (...) of mind-independent normative facts, in virtue of the desires of the agents for whom they are reasons, or in virtue of the voluntary acts of will of the agents for whom they are reasons. I argue that the best answer is a hybrid of the first and third answers. While it is not always up to us whether some consideration is a reason, sometimes it is. Investigating how this can be turns out to illuminate some classic metaethical issues about the role of reflection in agency, the relationship between morality and our personal projects, and how normative motivation is possible. (shrink)