Moral Rationalism and Blameworthiness
I’m sympathetic to the following view, which I call moral rationalism:
MR: If S is morally required to do x, then S has decisive reason (all things considered) to do x.
One popular argument for this view appeals to blameworthiness. This sort of argument is found both in Darwall (2006, 287-292) and in Skorupski (1999, 170) as well as in Shafer-Landau (2003, 190-193), although Shafer-Landau employs it to argue for only weak moral rationalism:
WMR: If S is morally required to do x, then S has a (pro tanto) reason to do x.
The following is my reconstruction of their argument.
Recent Comments