"Reasons We Can Share"

Philosophers have defined primal morality as an act done for or to someone else. Christine Korsgaard argues that morality revolves around people doing something together. “The subject of morality is not what we should bring about, but how we relate to one another” (Korsgaard 275). The question is whether reasons and values are subjective, existing only in relation to individuals, or objective, there for everyone?

Subjective reasons are actions done for one self, for example, promoting your own happiness. Subjective reasons are declared “good-for”. Objective reasons are actions done for anyone, for example, promoting the happiness of yourself and some one else. This is considered “good-absolutely”. There is a second interpretation of “good-absolutely” that has an intrinsic value, meaning that it provides a reason for both people to act for one another.

In “Reasons We Can Share” Korsgaard makes the claim that reasons and values are objective. She argues against Thomas Nagel who believes reasons and values are subjective. Nagel posits that all subjective reasons must be taken in order to have objective correlates. “If it is good for me to have something, then we must regard it as good-absolutely that I should have it” (Nagel 277). To counter this argument Korsgaard gives the example of someone being bullied. According to Nagel’s argument the person who is being bullied resents the action and because he resents it then the bully should as well. But Korsgaard argues that the person who is being a bully should know not to bully people because he would not like it done to him. Korsgaard applies relational concepts (objective) while Nagel proposes individual concepts (subjective). Nagel says that in order for us to relate with other people we must find an understanding in ourselves while Korsgaard says that we can act morally to other people because we know they exist.

Nagel re-claims his statement and states that some actions are purely subjective neutral and that objective reasons are not necessary in these actions. Nagel gives the example of climbing a mountain; stating that the action of climbing will only bring happiness to one person. Korsgaard counters his argument by stating that Nagel’s example can be defined as an ambition. Furthermore, ambitions are put in place because people have already put an objective realist interpretation. She gives the example of viewing a painting or eating chocolate. Someone who eats chocolate likes it and someone who does not can potentially be missing out on some sort of value. But these values where already put in place by the masses not by an individual, thus stating that individuals react in an objective manner rather than subjective.

Korsgaard main point; “to say you have a reason is to say something relational, something which implies the existence of another, at least another self” (Korsgaard 301).
Moreover, normative claims are claims that we make on ourselves and with each other. Thus, Korsgaard disproves Nagel by claiming that acknowledging another person is not a reason to treat someone in a certain way but “rather something that stands behind the very possibility of reasons” (Korsgaard 301).

I agree that can not exert claims on others without realizing that other people exist. I also agree that the world is a relational and interdependent place. One can not exist by him or herself. I feel that Korsgaard’s point has human character taken into account while Nagel’s point claims that individuals act out of purely individualistic which is not a reality.