Response to My Critics
-
Laura Valentini
Abstract
In Morality and Socially Constructed Norms, I argue that norms that exist as a matter of social fact have moral force, when they do, by virtue of what I call the ‘agency-respect principle.’ In what follows, I address the comments and criticisms of my view kindly offered by N. P. Adams, Åsa Burman, George Klosko, Katharina Nieswandt, and Titus Stahl, and which have appeared in a previous issue of this journal. My responses, just like the corresponding criticisms, will address some of the core themes of the book, including: the nature of socially constructed norms, the plausibility of the agency-respect principle, how to best understand and ground political obligation, and, in general, whether we should think that socially constructed norms have (primarily) moral normativity, as opposed to some other type of normativity.
References
Adams, N. P. 2024. “Moralism and Realism in Theorizing Social Norms.” Analyse & Kritik 46 (1): 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1515/auk-2024-2007.Search in Google Scholar
Burman, Åsa. 2024. “Two Types of Social Norms.” Analyse & Kritik 46 (1): 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1515/auk-2024-2004.Search in Google Scholar
Gilbert, Margaret. 2006. A Theory of Political Obligation: Membership, Commitment, and the Bonds of Society. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0199274959.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Klosko, George. 2024. “Political Obligations and Respect for Social Norms.” Analyse & Kritik 46 (1): 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1515/auk-2024-2005.Search in Google Scholar
Nieswandt, Katharina. 2018. “What is Conventionalism About Moral Rights and Duties?” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 97 (1): 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048402.2018.1425306.Search in Google Scholar
Nieswandt, Katharina. 2024. “Must I Honor Your Convictions? On Laura Valentini’s Agency-Respect View.” Analyse & Kritik 46 (1): 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1515/auk-2024-2008.Search in Google Scholar
Owens, David. 2006. “A Simple Theory of Promising.” Philosophical Review 115 (1): 51–77. https://doi.org/10.1215/00318108-115-1-51.Search in Google Scholar
Raz, Joseph. 1985. “Authority and Justification.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 14 (1): 3–29.Search in Google Scholar
Scanlon, Thomas M. 1990. “Promises and Practices.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 19 (3): 199–226.Search in Google Scholar
Stahl, Titus. 2024. “Social Norms and Obligation: Rescuing the Joint Commitment Account.” Analyse & Kritik 46 (1): 67–83. https://doi.org/10.1515/auk-2024-2006.Search in Google Scholar
Valentini, Laura. 2023. Morality and Socially Constructed Norms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/9780191938115.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Valentini, Laura. 2024. “Do Socially Constructed Norms Have Moral Force? Précis to a Symposium.” Analyse & Kritik 46 (1): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1515/auk-2024-2009.Search in Google Scholar
© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Focus: Shmuel Nili, Philosophizing the Indefensible: Strategic Political Theory
- Précis of Philosophizing the Indefensible
- Should we Distinguish Between Repugnant and Non-Repugnant Unreasonable Views?
- Property Rights, Fossil Fuel Imports, and Climate Change
- Civic Friendship, the Burdens of Politics, and the Ethics of Attention
- Philosophizing the Indefensible: Reply to Critics
- General Part
- What Can Historicising Rawls Achieve?
- Can Two Opposing Narratives Be Equally Valid? Reflections on Zreik’s Reflections on the War in Gaza
- Just Independence Wars and the October 7th Massacre
- Past, Present, and Future: A Reply to Heyd and Benbaji
- Proportionality and Necessity in Israel’s Invasion of Gaza, 2023–2024
- Discussion
- Response to My Critics
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Focus: Shmuel Nili, Philosophizing the Indefensible: Strategic Political Theory
- Précis of Philosophizing the Indefensible
- Should we Distinguish Between Repugnant and Non-Repugnant Unreasonable Views?
- Property Rights, Fossil Fuel Imports, and Climate Change
- Civic Friendship, the Burdens of Politics, and the Ethics of Attention
- Philosophizing the Indefensible: Reply to Critics
- General Part
- What Can Historicising Rawls Achieve?
- Can Two Opposing Narratives Be Equally Valid? Reflections on Zreik’s Reflections on the War in Gaza
- Just Independence Wars and the October 7th Massacre
- Past, Present, and Future: A Reply to Heyd and Benbaji
- Proportionality and Necessity in Israel’s Invasion of Gaza, 2023–2024
- Discussion
- Response to My Critics
