Relationality, relativism, and realism about moral value
Philosophical Studies 126 (3) (2005)
| Abstract | Among the many virtues of Facts, Values and Norms, is the articulation of an especially subtle and detailed form of naturalistic value realism. The theory aspires to vindicate the objective purport of value discourse while granting, indeed insisting, that value is subjective in important respects. Evaluative thought and inquiry are understood to be continuous with empirical inquiry in the human sciences, so that ethical and evaluative conclusions can ultimately be defended on a posteriori grounds. Railton argues that talk of what is good for a person, of what is morally right and morally valuable, and perhaps even of what is beautiful, may be shown to concern evaluative facts that are part of the natural world—a mind-independent world that is causally responsible for our experience. Yet each of these forms of value, he thinks, depends in essential ways on subjects who value them. They depend, that is, upon the existence of beings from whose subjective points of view things can matter; because a world without a locus of valuing or concern would be a world in which nothing mattered. One task Railton sets himself is to develop an understanding of the distinct respects in which value can be at once objective and subjective that could unseat the sort of skepticism about objective value that has seemed to many the inevitable upshot of a sober, naturalistic view of human life and thought: “a dark unease over what sort of thing value is and how it might find a place in the world” (86). While I find much to agree with and still more to admire in these excellent essays, I confine my attention here to an area where I have some misgivings. I want to explore the puzzling category that Railton calls “moral value,” and try to understand how the balance between subjectivity and objectivity is supposed to be achieved in that particular case. For this reason, and because they have not yet received the widespread attention.. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,672 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesMaurilio Lovatti (1999). Peter A. Railton and the Objective Moral Realism. Per la Filosofia (45):99-109.
Justin D'Arms (2005). Review: Relationality, Relativism, and Realism About Moral Value. [REVIEW] Philosophical Studies 126 (3):433 - 448.
Ruth Anna Putnam (2008). Why Not Moral Realism? International Journal of Philosophical Studies 16 (1):17 – 29.
Thomas Nagel (1986). The View From Nowhere. Oxford University Press.
Scott Forschler (2009). Truth and Acceptance Conditions for Moral Statements Can Be Identical: Further Support for Subjective Consequentialism. Utilitas 21 (3):337-346.
John Foster (2008). A World for Us: The Case for Phenomenalistic Idealism. Oxford University Press.
Peter Albert Railton (2003). Facts, Values, and Norms: Essays Toward a Morality of Consequence. Cambridge University Press.
Guy Kahane (forthcoming). Must Metaethical Realism Make a Semantic Claim? Journal of Moral Philosophy.
Michael Devitt (2002). Moral Realism. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 2 (1):1-15.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads25 ( #49,576 of 549,065 )Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,252 of 549,065 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
