Beställningsvara. Skickas inom 7-10 vardagar. Fri frakt för medlemmar vid köp för minst 249 kr.
In The Value Gap, Toni Rønnow-Rasmussen addresses the distinction between what is finally good and what is finally good-for, two value notions that are central to ethics and practical deliberation. The first part of the book argues against views that claim that one of these notions is either faulty, or at best conceptually dependent on the other notion. Whereas these two views disagree on whether it is good or good-for that is the flawed or dependent concept, it is argued, as against both approaches, that goodness and goodness-for are independent value notions that cannot be fully understood in terms of one another. The second part provides an analysis of good and good-for in terms of a fitting-attitude analysis. By elaborating a more nuanced understanding of the key elements of this analysis--reasons and pro-attitudes--Rønnow-Rasmussen challenges the widespread idea that there are no genuine practical and moral dilemmas. The result is that the gap between favouring for a reason what is good and favouring for a reason what is good for someone appears insurmountable.
Toni Rønnow-Rasmussen is a Professor and Acting Chair in Practical Philosophy at the Department of Philosophy, Lund University. In 2015, he was elected member of Academia Europea. He is the author of Personal Value (OUP, 2011), and has more recently published articles on moral progress, fitting-attitude analysis, intrinsic and extrinsic value, pro- and contra-attitudes, reasons, and on the metaethical view that he calls on-conditionalism.
Part I: Elements1: Value Taxonomy2: Good and Good-For3: Challenging Value Monism4: Challenging Good Monism5: Good-For UnitarianismPart II: A Fitting-Attitude Analysis of Value6: Fitting-Attitude Analysis7: The Logical Consequence of Fitting Attitudes8: The Fitting-Attitude Analysis Revised9: 'Sake'10: FA and Motivating Reasons11: Favourings for No Reason12: Mind the Value Gap
This volume provides an engaging discussion of the distinction between relational and nonrelational goods, that is, being good for a subject rather than being good simpliciter.