What Does It Be? Essay

1352 Words Nov 20th, 2016 6 Pages
*If having an obligation depends on one accepting an identity, but one can temporarily violate that identity and obligation, to what extent does one actually assume that identity? Korsgaard has claimed that an action will be accepted as a reason due to being intrinsically fit to be a something, given the identity in question. Presumably the same can be said of an obligation. An action is prohibited by an identity if it is intrinsically unfit, given the identity in question, to be performed. But if this is the case, how could it be so easy for someone to fail to fulfill their obligations? If the intrinsic fittingness or unfittingness of an action is what determines whether it will be accepted or rejected as a reason, this implies that the action 's intrinsic properties are obvious to the agent. In failing to fulfil a duty, it seems that an agent must either not recognize that their action is unfit to be performed, which would indicate that the act is not intrinsically unfit, or else they do not genuinely ascribe to the identity that prohibits it. *Korsgaard has already attempted to alleviate this concern, and has admitted that individuals can go from having an identity, to losing an identity, to regaining it. The question that she does not sufficiently address, however, is whether the obligations created by those identities can temporarily pop out of existence as well. It seems that, on her view, the existence of reason and obligation are too dependent on an agent 's…

Related Documents