Works by Holly Smith
39 found
Order:
1 filter applied
DisambiguationsDisambiguations:
| Holly M. Smith [26] | Holly Smith [13] | Holly S. Smith [1] | Holly A. Smith [1] |
- Culpable ignorance.Holly Smith -1983 -Philosophical Review 92 (4):543-571.
- (1 other version)Subjective rightness.Holly M. Smith -2010 -Social Philosophy and Policy 27 (2):64-110.Twentieth century philosophers introduced the distinction between “objective rightness” and “subjective rightness” to achieve two primary goals. The first goal is to reduce the paradoxical tension between our judgments of (i) what is best for an agent to do in light of the actual circumstances in which she acts and (ii) what is wisest for her to do in light of her mistaken or uncertain beliefs about her circumstances. The second goal is to provide moral guidance to an agent who (...) may be uncertain about the circumstances in which she acts, and hence is unable to use her standard moral principle directly in deciding what to do. This paper distinguishes two important senses of “moral guidance”; proposes criteria of adequacy for accounts of subjective rightness; canvasses existing definitions for “subjective rightness”; finds them all deficient; and proposes a new and more successful account. It argues that each comprehensive moral theory must include multiple principles of subjective rightness to address the epistemic situations of the full range of moral decision-makers, and shows that accounts of subjective rightness formulated in terms of what it would reasonable for the agent to believe cannot provide that guidance. -/- . (shrink)
- Making Morality Work.Holly Smith -2018 - Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press.What should we do if we cannot figure what morality requires of us? Holly M. Smith argues that the best moral codes solve this problem by offering two tiers, one of which tells us what makes acts right and wrong, and the other of which provides user-friendly decision guides. She opens a path towards resolving a deep problem of moral life.
- The Subjective Moral Duty to Inform Oneself before Acting.Holly M. Smith -2014 -Ethics 125 (1):11-38.The requirement that moral theories be usable for making decisions runs afoul of the fact that decision makers often lack sufficient information about their options to derive any accurate prescriptions from the standard theories. Many theorists attempt to solve this problem by adopting subjective moral theories—ones that ground obligations on the agent’s beliefs about the features of her options, rather than on the options’ actual features. I argue that subjective deontological theories suffer a fatal flaw, since they cannot appropriately require (...) agents to gather information before acting. (shrink)
- Non-Tracing Cases of Culpable Ignorance.Holly Smith -2011 -Criminal Law and Philosophy 5 (2):115-146.Recent writers on negligence and culpable ignorance have argued that there are two kinds of culpable ignorance: tracing cases, in which the agent’s ignorance traces back to some culpable act or omission of hers in the past that led to the current act, which therefore arguably inherits the culpability of that earlier failure; and non-tracing cases, in which there is no such earlier failure, so the agent’s current state of ignorance must be culpable in its own right. An unusual but (...) intriguing justification for blaming agents in non-tracing cases is provided by Attributionism, which holds that we are as blameworthy for our non-voluntary emotional reactions, spontaneous attitudes, and the ensuing patterns of awareness as we are for our voluntary actions. The Attributionist explanation for why some non-tracing cases involve culpability is an appealing one, even though it has limited scope. After providing a deeper account of why we should take the Attributionist position seriously, I use recent psychological research to argue for a new account of the conditions under which agents are culpable for straightforward instances of blameworthy acts. That account is extended to blameworthiness for non-voluntary responses. I conclude that even when the agent’s failure to notice arises from a nonvoluntary objectionable attitude, very few such cases are ones in which Attributionism implies that the agent is blameworthy for her act. (shrink)
- Measuring the Consequences of Rules: Holly M. Smith.Holly M. Smith -2010 -Utilitas 22 (4):413-433.Recently two distinct forms of rule-utilitarianism have been introduced that differ on how to measure the consequences of rules. Brad Hooker advocates fixed-rate rule-utilitarianism, while Michael Ridge advocates variable-rate rule-utilitarianism. I argue that both of these are inferior to a new proposal, optimum-rate rule-utilitarianism. According to optimum-rate rule-utilitarianism, an ideal code is the code whose optimum acceptance level is no lower than that of any alternative code. I then argue that all three forms of rule-utilitarianism fall prey to two fatal (...) problems that leave us without any viable form of rule-utilitarianism. (shrink)
- Varieties of moral worth and moral credit.Holly M. Smith -1991 -Ethics 101 (2):279-303.
- Rights, Restitution, and Risk: Essays in Moral Theory.Holly M. Smith -1989 -Philosophical Review 98 (3):414.
- Using moral principles to guide decisions.Holly Smith -2012 -Philosophical Issues 22 (1):369-386.
- Making moral decisions.Holly M. Smith -1988 -Noûs 22 (1):89-108.
- The "Prospective View" of Obligation.Holly M. Smith -2010 -Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy (1):1-9.
- Even More Supererogatory.Holly Smith -2024 -Australasian Journal of Philosophy 102 (1):1-20.Losing an arm to rescue a child from a burning building is supererogatory. But is losing an arm to save two children more supererogatory than losing two arms to save a single child? What factors make one act more supererogatory than another? I provide an innovative account of how to compare which of two acts is more supererogatory, and show the superiority of this account to its chief rival.
- Deriving Morality from Rationality.Holly Smith -1991 - In Peter Vallentyne,Contractarianism and Rational Choice: Essays on David Gauthier's Morals by Agreement. Cambridge University Press.
- A paradox of promising.Holly M. Smith -1997 -Philosophical Review 106 (2):153-196.For centuries it has been a mainstay of European and American moral thought that keeping promises—and the allied activity of upholding contracts—is one of the most important requirements of morality. On some historically powerful views the obligation to uphold promises or contracts not only regulates private relationships, but also provides the moral foundation for our duty to support and obey legitimate governments. Some theorists believe that the concept of keeping promises has gradually moved to center stage in European moral thought. (...) They see this movement as part of an historical shift from a moral conception in which an individual’s duties are mainly externally imposed and unalterable, to a conception in which duties are largely chosen by the individual. (shrink)
- Moral Decision Guides: Counsels of Morality or Counsels of Rationality?Holly M. Smith -2022 -Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 22 (1).In a two-tiered, or Dual Oughts, moral theory, the objective account of right and wrong is supplemented by decision guides designed to enable an agent, uncertain about the circumstances or consequences of her possible actions, to indirectly apply the objective theory by using an appropriate decision guide. But are the decision guides counsels of morality or counsels of rationality? Peter Graham argues they are counsels of pragmatic rationality. This paper shows Graham’s view is unsuccessful, and argues, based on the approach (...) recently developed in [Author] that decision guides must be seen as moral principles. An explanation is provided for why we may be tempted to interpret decision guides as principles of rationality. (shrink)
- Moral Realism, Moral Conflict, and Compound Acts.Holly M. Smith -1986 -Journal of Philosophy 83 (6):341.Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
- Two-Tier Moral Codes.Holly M. Smith -1989 -Social Philosophy and Policy 7 (1):112.A moral code consists of principles that assign moral status to individual actions – principles that evaluate acts as right or wrong, prohibited or obligatory, permissible or supererogatory. Many theorists have held that such principles must serve two distinct functions. On the one hand, they serve a theoretical function, insofar as they specify the characteristics in virtue of which acts possess their moral status. On the other hand, they serve a practical function, insofar as they provide an action-guide: a standard (...) by reference to which a person can choose which acts to perform and which not. Although the theoretical and practical functions of moral principles are closely linked, it is not at all obvious that what enables a principle to fill one of these roles automatically equips it to fill the other. In this paper I shall briefly examine some of the reasons why a moral principle might fail to fill its practical role, i.e., be incapable of guiding decisions. I shall then sketch three common responses to this kind of failure, and examine in some detail the adequacy of one of the most popular of these responses. (shrink)
- The morality of creating and eliminating duties.Holly M. Smith &David E. Black -2019 -Philosophical Studies 176 (12):3211-3240.We often act in ways that create duties for ourselves: we adopt a child and become obligated to raise and educate her. We also sometimes act in ways that eliminate duties: we get divorced, and no longer have a duty to support our now ex-spouse. When is it morally permissible to create or to eliminate a duty? These questions have almost wholly evaded philosophical attention. In this paper we develop answers to these questions by arguing in favor of the asymmetric (...) approach to deontic value. This approach holds that we must assign zero deontic value to fulfilling a duty, while assigning negative deontic value to violating that duty. Taking the opposing more natural symmetric approach, which holds that fulfilling duties has positive deontic value, leads to perverse recommendations about when to create or eliminate duties. A formal proof supporting the asymmetric approach is offered. We further show that moral theories require a consequentialist component to explain why we sometimes have duties to create or maintain duties. (shrink)No categories
- The Zimmerman-Graham Debate on Objectivism versus Prospectivism.Holly M. Smith -2018 -Journal of Moral Philosophy 15 (4):401-414.In Living with Uncertainty Michael Zimmerman argues against the Objective view and for the Prospective view of morality. He claims that the conscientious agent would always choose the act that maximizes projected value, and that this is incompatible with Objectivism. Peter Graham defends Objectivism against Zimmerman’s attack. He argues that a conscientious agent must balance fulfilling obligations against avoiding the worst wrong-doings, and that this stance is consistent with Objectivism and with the agent’s choosing an act she believes to be (...) Objectively wrong. In Ignorance and Moral Obligation Zimmerman argues that Graham’s “Objectivism” is only terminologically distinct from his Prospectivism. I argue that Graham faces a dilemma: if his theory delivers different prescriptions from Zimmerman’s, those prescriptions are implausible. On the other hand, if his theory avoids such implausible recommendations, it now generates exactly the same recommendations as Zimmerman’s theory, and so does not constitute a serious challenge to it. (shrink)
- The Moral Clout of Reasonable Beliefs.Holly M. Smith -2010 - In Mark Timmons,Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics, Volume I. Oxford University Press.Because we must often make decisions in light of imperfect information about our prospective actions, the standard principles of objective obligation must be supplemented with principles of subjective obligation (which evaluate actions in light of what the agent believes about their circumstances and consequences). The point of principles of subjective obligation is to guide agents in making decisions. But should these principles be stated in terms of what the agent actually believes or what it would be reasonable for her to (...) believe about her prospective actions? I show that there are many decisions for which “reasonable belief” principles can’t be used by the decision-maker, especially in cases in which whether (or how) the agent investigates or deliberates affects the nature of the prospective action itself. I conclude that subjective rightness depends on what the agent actually believes, not what it would be reasonable for her to believe. (shrink)
- Deciding How to Decide: Is There a Regress Problem?Holly Smith -1991 - In Michael Bacharach & Susan Hurley,Essays in the Foundations of Decision Theory. Blackwell.
- Experimentations With the Archive: A Roundtable Conversation.Julietta Singh,Holly A. Smith,Zayaan Khan &La Vaughn Belle -2020 -Feminist Review 125 (1):17-37.No categories
- Does Being Morally Responsible Depend on the Ability to Hold Morally Responsible?Holly M. Smith -2014 -Philosophical Studies 171 (1):51-62.Michael McKenna’s Conversation and Responsibility is a genuine tour de force: a richly detailed, sustained argument for an innovative theory about the nature of moral responsibility, one that offers multiple layers of theoretical architectonic. Its depth repays equally deep examination, and I have learned a great deal from reading and thinking about it. Any philosopher seeking a rigorous yet generous introduction to the state of contemporary discussion on moral responsibility could hardly do better than to read this book. It is (...) true that I am not yet persuaded by McKenna’s central thesis that the most illuminating way to understand moral responsibility is to view it as a type of interpersonal conversation. And I am dubious that his strategy of accounting for the “fittingness” of blaming responses in terms of the “intelligibility” of such responses as part of a conversation can really be made to pan out. Nonetheless I greatly appreciated a great number of the positions and proposals mad .. (shrink)
- Intercourse and moral responsibility for the fetus.Holly M. Smith -1983 - In William B. Bondesson, H. Tristram Englehardt, Stuart Spicker & Daniel H. Winship,Abortion and the Status of the Fetus. D. Reidel.in Abortion and the Status of the Fetus, Volume XIII of the series, “Philosophy of Medicine,” eds. William B. Bondeson, H. Tristram Englehardt, Stuart Spicker, and Daniel H. Winship (Dordrecht, Holland/Boston, Massachusetts: D. Reidel, 1983), pp. 229-245.
- Fetal-Maternal Conflicts.Holly Smith -1994 - In Jules L. Coleman & Allen Buchanan,In Harm's Way: Essays in Honor of Joel Feinberg. New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.in In Harm’s Way: Essays in Honor of Joel Feinberg, edited by Allen Buchanan and Jules Coleman (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 324-343.
- Can a single account of supererogation handle both finite and infinite cases?Holly M. Smith -2023 -Philosophical Studies 180 (8):2399-2413.Discussions of supererogation usually focus on cases in which the agent can choose among a finite number of options. However, Daniel Muñoz has recently shown that cases in which the agent faces an infinite chain of increasingly less good options make trouble for existing definitions of supererogation. Muñoz proposes a promising new definition as a solution to the problem of infinite cases. I argue that any acceptable account of supererogation must (1) enable us to accurately identify supererogatory acts in both (...) finite and infinite option cases. It must also (2) include a suitably related account of what makes one act more supererogatory than another for finite, infinite, single-choice (one agent choosing among several supererogatory options) and inter-choice (two different agents, each choosing a supererogatory option) cases. I further argue that the best current account of supererogation for finite cases works well for finite cases, but cannot handle infinite cases. However, Muñoz’s proposal cannot handle inter-choice cases in either finite or infinite cases. I conclude we still need an account for infinite cases, and may have to settle for separate definitions of supererogation for finite and infinite cases. (shrink)
- Doing the best one can.Holly Smith -1978 - In Alvin I. Goldman & Jaegwon Kim,Values and Morals: Essays in Honor of William Frankena, Charles Stevenson, and Richard Brandt. Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 186-214.in Values and Morals, eds. Alvin Goldman and Jaegwon Kim (Reidel, 1978), pp. 186-214.
- Making Morality Work By Holly M. Smith.Holly M. Smith -2022 -Analysis 81 (4):729-731.No categories
- Replies.Holly M. Smith -2022 -Analysis 81 (4):758-771.No categories
- Promising, Intending, and Moral Autonomy.Holly M. Smith -1987 -Noûs 21 (4):604-608.
- Aceh: Art and Culture.D. M. Roskies &Holly S. Smith -1999 -Journal of the American Oriental Society 119 (4):722.No categories
- Amniocentesis for sex selection.Holly Smith -2013in Ethics, Humanism, and Medicine, ed. Marc Basson (New York: Alan R. Liss, 1980), pp. 81-94.
- David Lyons on utilitarian generalization.Holly Smith -manuscriptPhilosophical Studies, Vol. 26 (October, 1974), pp. 77-94.Export citation
Bookmark - David Lewis' semantics for deontic logic.Holly Smith -manuscriptMind, Vol. LXXXVI (April, 1977) pp. 242-248.Export citation Bookmark
- Introduction.Holly M. Smith -1986 -Ethics 96 (3):471.
- Ignorance and Moral Obligation, by Michael J. Zimmerman.: Table 1.Holly M. Smith -2016 -Mind 125 (499):935-942.
- The collective interpretation of utilitarian generalization.Holly Smith -manuscriptPhilosophical Studies, Vol. 34 (August, 1978), pp. 207-211.Export citation Bookmark
- (1 other version)Whose body is it, anyway?Holly M. Smith -1983 -Noûs 17 (1):76.
- What Makes A Life Worth Saving?Holly M. Smith -1984 -Hastings Center Report 14 (1):48-48.
Off-campus access
Using PhilPapers from home?
Create an account to enable off-campus access through your institution's proxy server or OpenAthens.
Monitor this page
Be alerted of all new items appearing on this page. Choose how you want to monitor it:
 Email |  RSS feed |
Editorial team
General Editors:
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Area Editors:
David Bourget
Gwen Bradford
Berit Brogaard
Margaret Cameron
David Chalmers
James Chase
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Esa Diaz-Leon
Barry Hallen
Hans Halvorson
Jonathan Ichikawa
Monte Johnson
Michelle Kosch
Øystein Linnebo
Paul Livingston
Brandon Look
Manolo Martínez
Matthew McGrath
Michiru Nagatsu
Susana Nuccetelli
Giuseppe Primiero
Jack Alan Reynolds
Darrell P. Rowbottom
Aleksandra Samonek
Constantine Sandis
Howard Sankey
Jonathan Schaffer
Thomas Senor
Daniel Star
Jussi Suikkanen
Aness Kim Webster
Other editors
Contact us
Learn more about PhilPapers
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Area Editors:
David Bourget
Gwen Bradford
Berit Brogaard
Margaret Cameron
David Chalmers
James Chase
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Esa Diaz-Leon
Barry Hallen
Hans Halvorson
Jonathan Ichikawa
Monte Johnson
Michelle Kosch
Øystein Linnebo
Paul Livingston
Brandon Look
Manolo Martínez
Matthew McGrath
Michiru Nagatsu
Susana Nuccetelli
Giuseppe Primiero
Jack Alan Reynolds
Darrell P. Rowbottom
Aleksandra Samonek
Constantine Sandis
Howard Sankey
Jonathan Schaffer
Thomas Senor
Daniel Star
Jussi Suikkanen
Aness Kim Webster
Other editors
Contact us
Learn more about PhilPapers
Home |New books and articles |Bibliographies |Philosophy journals |About PhilPapers |API |Contact us |Code of conduct
PhilPapers logo byAndrea Andrews andMeghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see ourterms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications).Use of this site is subject toterms & conditions.
All rights reserved byThe PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-5b9ff6f457-sbjvh uwo