Can there be brute, contingent moral facts

Philosophical Studies 108 (1-2):23 - 30 (2002)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this paper I argue that whether or not a world is good can be a contingent fact about the world that is not dependent upon that world's natural facts, or, indeed, upon anyother facts. If so, the property, good, does not supervene upon the facts of nature (or upon any other facts). My argument for this claimis that it is possible to view the very world in which we live (viz. the natural facts that constitute it) as good and to view it as bad.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,435

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Cosmological Contingency and Theistic Explanation.Philip Quinn - 2005 - Faith and Philosophy 22 (5):581-600.
On not worshipping facts.J. R. Lucas - 1958 - Philosophical Quarterly 8 (31):144-156.
Moral and epistemic open-question arguments.Chris Heathwood - 2009 - Philosophical Books 50 (2):83-98.
Explaining Brute Facts.Eric Barnes - 1994 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:61-68.
A Biological Alternative to Moral Explanations.Joseph Millum - 2008 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 46 (3):385-407.
Being Positive About Negative Facts.Mark Jago & Stephen Barker - 2012 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 85 (1):117-138.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
125 (#143,344)

6 months
3 (#981,909)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

John H. Dreher
University of Southern California

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references