Normative Vagueness: Action‐Guidance

The apparent vagueness of normative terms, such as “permissible,” “ought,” and “is better than”, raises a number of intriguing questions and has prompted a growing body of philosophical literature. This article specifically examines decision‐theoretical questions of the following kind: What ought we do when it is borderline what we ought to do? What option is best when it is indeterminate which option is best? I survey the most elaborate accounts that attempt to answer such questions that have so far been presented. My discussion suggests that the debate about action‐guidance under normative vagueness presses on general issues concerning what types of credence it is rational to hold, the nature of indeterminacy, and how to explain cases where the classic value relations seemingly fail to hold.