Philosophers who publish articles that make practical ethical recommendations are thereby offering advice. I consider what obligations they incur in advising. I analyse the giving of advice as a communicative act whose defining and characteristic aim is to secure acceptance of what is advised. Such advice need not be solicited or taken up. I distinguish advice from incitement and threats and specify the scope of the adviser's responsibility for others acting upon the advice. I explore how advice can be bad in how it is given and what is given. I consider, and criticise, various pleas for exemption from the responsibilities of philosophical advising: that advice was not meant; that it wouldn't make any difference anyway; and that the writing was not for those who might act on it. I examine the offering of philosophical advice to policy makers, comparing the views on this of Mary Warnock and Dan Brock. I conclude by asking practical normative philosophers to consider what they should do inasmuch as they are advising.

中文翻译：

---

哲学建议

发表文章提出实用的伦理建议的哲学家因此提供了建议。我考虑了他们在提供建议时所承担的义务。我将提供建议分析为一种交流行为，其定义和特征目标是确保接受建议的内容。无需征求或采纳此类建议。我将建议与煽动和威胁区分开来，并指定顾问对根据建议采取行动的其他人的责任范围。我探讨了如何给出建议以及给出什么建议是不好的。我考虑并批评了各种要求免除哲学建议责任的请求：建议不是故意的；无论如何它不会有任何区别；并且写作不适合那些可能采取行动的人。我研究了向政策制定者提供的哲学建议，比较了 Mary Warnock 和 Dan Brock 对此的看法。最后，我要求实用的规范哲学家考虑他们应该做什么，因为他们正在提供建议。