Abstract
Philosophers who publish articles that make practical ethical recommendations are thereby offering advice. I consider what obligations they incur in advising. I analyse the giving of advice as a communicative act whose defining and characteristic aim is to secure acceptance of what is advised. Such advice need not be solicited or taken up. I distinguish advice from incitement and threats and specify the scope of the adviser's responsibility for others acting upon the advice. I explore how advice can be bad in how it is given and what is given. I consider, and criticise, various pleas for exemption from the responsibilities of philosophical advising: that advice was not meant; that it wouldn't make any difference anyway; and that the writing was not for those who might act on it. I examine the offering of philosophical advice to policy makers, comparing the views on this of Mary Warnock and Dan Brock. I conclude by asking practical normative philosophers to consider what they should do inasmuch as they are advising.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 603-623 |
| Number of pages | 21 |
| Journal | Philosophy |
| Volume | 96 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| Early online date | 23 Apr 2021 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Oct 2021 |
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Philosophy
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Philosophical Advice'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver