David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 94 (1):1-18 (2013)
Perhaps the two main contemporary formulations of ethical naturalism – Synthetic Ethical Naturalism (SEN) and Analytical Descriptivism – seem to conflict with plausible views about cases where moral debate and disagreement is possible. Both lack safeguards to avoid divergence of reference across different communities, which can scupper the prospects for genuine moral disagreement. I explore the prospects for supplementing both views with Lewis's notion of eligibility, arguing that this can solve the problem for a modified form of analytical descriptivism, and for a modified form of SEN too (though perhaps more controversially). I close by considering the appropriateness of using the notions of eligibility and joint-carving in ethics
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Simon Blackburn (1998/2000). Ruling Passions. Oxford University Press.
George Lakoff (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Thing: What Catergories Reveal About the Mind. University of Chicago Press.
Saul A. Kripke (1980/1998). Naming and Necessity. Harvard University Press.
Nelson Goodman (1983). Fact, Fiction, and Forecast. Harvard University Press.
Frank Jackson (1998). From Metaphysics to Ethics: A Defence of Conceptual Analysis. Oxford University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Susana Nuccetelli & Gary Seay (eds.) (2012). Ethical Naturalism: Current Debates. Cambridge University Press.
Mark Hanin (2012). Naturalistic Moral Realism and Moral Disagreement: David Copp's Account. Res Publica 18 (4):283-301.
John Mizzoni (2003). Environ-Moral Realism. Journal of Philosophical Research 28:191-221.
David Copp (2003). Why Naturalism? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 6 (2):179-200.
J. Robert G. Williams (2007). Eligibility and Inscrutability. Philosophical Review 116 (3):361-399.
Charles Weijer, Selecting Subjects for Participation in Clinical Research: An Empirical Inquiry and Ethical Analysis.
Theodore Sider (2014). Hirsch's Attack on Ontologese. Noûs 48 (3):565-572.
James A. Ryan (1997). A Defence of Mencius' Ethical Naturalism. Asian Philosophy 7 (1):23 – 36.
John Cantwell (2003). Eligible Contraction. Studia Logica 73 (2):167 - 182.
Imtiaz Moosa (2007). Naturalistic Explanations of Apodictic Moral Claims: Brentano's Ethical Intuitionism and Nietzsche's Naturalism. [REVIEW] Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 10 (2):159 - 182.
Sergio Tenenbaum (2011). Externalism, Motivation, and Moral Knowledge. In Susana Nuccetelli & Gary Seay (eds.), Ethical Naturalism: Current Debates. Cambridge University Press
Matthew S. Bedke (2009). Intuitive Non-Naturalism Meets Cosmic Coincidence. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 90 (2):188-209.
Added to index2012-10-02
Total downloads19 ( #145,074 of 1,725,444 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #110,437 of 1,725,444 )
How can I increase my downloads?