Humean constructivists object to Kantian constructivism that by endorsing the constitutivist strategy, which grounds moral obligations in rational agency, this position discounts the impact of contingency in moral life. In response to these charges, I argue that Humeans misrepresent the challenge of contingency and fail to provide adequate resources to cope with it. In its formalist variety, Humean constructivism fails to make sense of an important category of ethical judgments, which claim universal authority. The substantive varieties of Humean constructivism recognize that some ethical judgments aspire to universality, but fail to fully justify such an aspiration. These versions of constructivism represent a setback in regard to the achievements of Kantian constructivism. In conclusion, I briefly resume the advantages of advocating a Kantian conception of rational authority as a response to contingency.

中文翻译：

---

授权作为应急计划

休曼式的建构主义者反对康德式的建构主义，即通过赞同基于理性代理的道德义务的建构主义策略，这种立场降低了偶然性对道德生活的影响。针对这些指控，我认为，休曼人曲解了突发事件的挑战，并且没有提供足够的资源来应对突发事件。在形式主义的多样性中，休曼建构主义未能理解道德判断的重要范畴，道德判断主张普遍的权威。休曼建构主义的实质性变体认识到一些道德判断渴望实现普遍性，但未能充分证明这种愿望是合理的。这些形式的建构主义代表了康德建构主义成就的挫折。结论，