Abstract
AbstractHow worried should we be about how impressionable we are—how susceptible we are to being influenced and even transformed by our encounters with one another? Some moral philosophers think we should be quite worried indeed: they hold that interpersonal influence is an especially morally dangerous way to change. It calls for additional moral scrutiny as compared with vectors of change that come from within the influencee’s own psyche—their antecedent values, desires, commitments, and so forth—just because it has an external source. I argue that this heightened scrutiny of exogenous sources of change is unwarranted. Dramatic psychic changes do call for reflection and critical scrutiny, especially when they are sudden. But this scrutiny need not be concerned with the procedural issue of whether the impetus for the change came from inside or outside the changing person’s antecedent psychology. We can just evaluate the substantive changes themselves.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Social Sciences,Philosophy
Reference56 articles.
1. Akhlaghi, F. (2022). Transformative experience and the right to revelatory autonomy. Analysis, 20(20), 1–10.
2. Berman, M. ([1970] 2009). The politics of authenticity: Radical individualism and the emergence of modern society. Verso.
3. Boxill, B., & Boxill, J. (2015). Servility and self-respect: An African-American and feminist critique. In M. Timmons & R. N. Johnson (Eds.), Reason, value, and respect: Kantian themes from the philosophy of Thomas E. Hill Jr. (pp. 19–41). Oxford University Press.
4. Buss, S. (1999). Respect for Persons. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 29(4), 517–550.
5. Carlsson, U. (2018). Tragedy and resentment. Mind, 127(508), 1169–1191.