Parameters for Determining Agent-Neutral and Agent-Relative Values

In Christine M. Korsgaard’s Creating the Kingdom of Ends, the idea of togetherness and having a shared experience are the most critical pieces of information. Before analyzing Korsgaard’s beliefs and ideas, there are some terms that need to be explained. These terms are “agent-relative”, “agent-neutral”, “subjective” and “objective”. Agent-relative and subjective are the two terms which relate to each other while objective and agent-neutral relate to each other. I will explain this providing the meanings of these four terms. We’ll start with agent- relative. When something is agent-relative, then that thing is related to an individual and nobody else. In other words, anything agent-relative deals only with a particular agent and no other agent. This is connected to subjective matters as these matters are considered by Korsgaard as “personal property” (“Ends” 267). Agent-neutral values and objective matters are similar by the same way. Agent-neutral values are values pertaining to all agents and objective values are “common property” shared by all agents. Korsgaard responds to many of Nagel’s beliefs on values and agents. Nagel claims that whenever something subjective exists, it must’ve come from something objective. Right away, Korsgaard says that she cannot accept this argument. But I think that the argument may be justifiable. Take for example, an individual who is considering donating money, food and clothing to third world countries. This decision is subjective and agent-relative because the individual feels that it is good for him to help others in dire need. But behind this decision is the individual’s understanding that the preservation of life is critical not only to someone who can buy their own food and pay their own bills but also to the people who can’t. In the end, the decision is about the individual feeling good, but in actuality, the decision was based on a universal concept of life preservation.

Korsgaard continues to look into agent-neutral values and determines that there are 2 interpretations of these agent-neutral values. Her two interpretations are called “objective realism” and “intersubjectivism”. Objective realism revolves around the idea that something exists for its own reason and not for any other agent or matter. The example used by Korsgaard is the sun. It shines not because it’s vital for life to exist, but just because it’s just what it does. This led to Korsgaard looking into another one of Nagel’s claims on agent-relative values which I found interesting. Nagel explains why “reasons for autonomy”, “deontological reasons and “reasons of obligation” will always be agent-relative. Beginning with reasons for autonomy, if one desires to achieve something “idiosyncratic”, it is impossible for this decision to be agent-neutral because the individual desiring to achieve this will know that it is good for himself and not necessarily good for everybody else. He also knows that he would not get any assistance with his task or “project”. Next would be deontological reasons. These values can never be seen as agent-neutral because an individual acting against moral restrictions is acting against what is good for him or herself for what he or she considers a good end result. Finally, reasons for obligation must also never be looked at as agent- neutral because a relationship such as mother and son will cause all actions made by either the mother or son to be for the reason that they are family and not