ABSTRACT
Theories of moral obligation have featured prominently in our discussions so far, in which we tried both to examine important accounts of the basis of moral obligation and, if more briefly, to raise some doubts about trying to base moral judgements entirely upon theories. There is, however, a more nebulous area of moral philosophy upon which we have scarcely touched, but which is of great importance. It is also an area where conflicts between theory and everyday practice come to the fore. The conflicts are not so much between moral theories and their potential clash with ordinary judgement, but between more general kinds of theories – concerning human nature, or determinism, for example – and our interpersonal responses.
