The buck-passer about value simpliciter now faces two problems.
We are making a parallel point against a reply the buck-passer might give to our suggestion that features that are bad simpliciter cannot be funny.
First, this would not show that the problems are not problems for the buck-passer. Indeed, to accept this form of primitivism is a way of accepting that there is a problem.
It seems that buck-passers about value need to understand value solely in terms of the right kind of reasons.
Analogous Problems for Buck-Passers about Value Simpliciter
Although considering properties like admirability and enviability points to a WKR/RKR distinction that everyone should want to explain, life is harder for buck-passers about value simpliciter for this very reason.
If so, we should reject Schroeder's case for getting buck-passers about value simpliciter off the hook.
Thus far, the buck-passer of the BP-2 variety can agree (I hope).
But if the buck-passer tries to do so, she may run into a regress.
It would, for instance, provide an answer to Rabinowicz's and Ronnow-Rasmussen's worry about "wrong reasons": (29) The worry arises because the buck-passer seems to be committed to regarding anything that has properties which provide reasons as valuable.
As opposed to the buck-passer, I believe that values explain reasons in the following sense: It is only an aspect of an evaluative property, such as being pleasant (say), that it provides reasons.
The buck-passer is committed to the view that it is always other properties which provide the reason.
Finally, Brewer contends that
buck-passers cannot distinguish apparently real phenomenological differences in evaluative impressions like the majestic, debauched, courageous and stingy.
Before getting to how our Brentano-style approach might offer a way out for Brentano and the
buck-passers, they briefly consider and reject an interesting attempt to solve the WKR problem recently proposed by John Skorupski.
On the whole, our troops in Iraq are lions, led by cowards,
buck-passers, cynical opportunists and liars into the most shameless war a British prime minister has ever sanctioned.
