The claim that "our normative ethical theory tells us how or whether moral agency upsets the basic picture given to us by our axiology" can be read as implying that axiological facts are prior to, and specifiable independently of, normative facts. Is this what you mean? Because if it is, many (most?) non-consequentialists will of course …
The claim that "our normative ethical theory tells us how or whether moral agency upsets the basic picture given to us by our axiology" can be read as implying that axiological facts are prior to, and specifiable independently of, normative facts. Is this what you mean? Because if it is, many (most?) non-consequentialists will of course disagree: they will say facts about which outcomes are good are grounded in metaphysically prior facts about what agents have reason to want.
Oh no, I'm quite happy with reasons fundamentalism. We can still roughly characterize the consequentialism/non-c. dispute in terms of whether the presence of agency in a causal chain fundamentally changes *what we have reason to want*.
The claim that "our normative ethical theory tells us how or whether moral agency upsets the basic picture given to us by our axiology" can be read as implying that axiological facts are prior to, and specifiable independently of, normative facts. Is this what you mean? Because if it is, many (most?) non-consequentialists will of course disagree: they will say facts about which outcomes are good are grounded in metaphysically prior facts about what agents have reason to want.
Oh no, I'm quite happy with reasons fundamentalism. We can still roughly characterize the consequentialism/non-c. dispute in terms of whether the presence of agency in a causal chain fundamentally changes *what we have reason to want*.