The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Ruling Passions: A Theory of Practical Reasoning
Abstract
Simon Blackburn puts forward a compelling original philosophy of human motivation and morality. He maintains that we cannot get clear about ethics until we get clear about human nature. So these are the sorts of questions he addresses: Why do we behave as we do? Can we improve? Is our ethics at war with our passions, or is it an upshot of those passions? Blackburn seeks the answers in an exploration of guilt, shame, disgust, and other moral emotions; he draws also on game theory and cognitive science in his account of the structures of human motivation. Many philosophers have wanted a naturalistic ethics--a theory that integrates our understanding of human morality with the rest of our understanding of the world we live in. What is special about Blackburn's naturalistic ethics is that it does not debunk the ethical by reducing it to the non-ethical. At the same time he banishes the spectres of scepticism and relativism that have haunted recent moral philosophy. Ruling Passions sets ethics in the context of human nature: it offers a solution to the puzzle of how ethics can maintain its authority even though it is rooted in the very emotions and motivations that it exists to control.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“For example, human helping behavior is highly correlated with factors such as pleasant weather, noise level, familiarity with a potential victim, and nonurban origins.5”
From Virtue Ethics and Moral Psychology: The Situationism Debate (2009) · cites this paper as [5]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Goldman, A. I. (2006) · doi:10.1093/0195138929.001.0001 · Cited by 1,526
A Darwinian Dilemma for Realist Theories of Value
Street, S. (2006) · Philosophical Studies · doi:10.1007/s11098-005-1726-6 · Cited by 1,247
Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics
O’Neill, O. (2002) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511606250 · Cited by 1,216
Nichols, S. (2004) · doi:10.1093/0195169344.001.0001 · Cited by 522
Waldron, J. (2002) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511613920 · Cited by 512
Metadata
- Authors
- Blackburn, S.
- Corresponding author
- Blackburn, Simon
- Publisher
- Oxford University PressOxford
- Published
- 1998-09-24
- OpenAlex
- W4388223145
- Cited by
- 1,217
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 42 · 2025: 74 · 2024: 86 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 62 · 2018: 47 · 2017: 81 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 54 · 2013: 51 · 2012: 58
- FWCI
- 26.84
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Emotions and Moral Behavior
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
- Keywords
- Simon Blackburn, ethical naturalism, moral emotions, guilt, shame, disgust, motives, human nature, moral skepticism, moral relativism, emotions and morality, game theory, cognitive science
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Ruling Passions: A Theory of Practical Reasoning. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/oso/9780198247852.001.0001
- The paper
- Blackburn, S. (1998). Ruling Passions: A Theory of Practical Reasoning. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198247852.001.0001