David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (5):589-601 (2012)
Abstract Street has argued that the meta-ethical realist is faced with a dilemma. Either evolutionary forces have had a distorting influenced on our ability to track moral properties or evolutionary forces influenced our beliefs in the direction of tracking moral properties. Street argues that if the realist accepts the first horn of the dilemma, the realist must accept implausible skepticism regarding moral beliefs. If the realist accepts the second horn of the dilemma, the realist owes an explanation of the fitness producing nature of moral beliefs. As Street establishes the dialectic, the anti-realist’s explanation is better. I will argue that Street’s first horn is question begging then I will grasp the second horn of the dilemma and argue that only the realist can explain the role of moral beliefs in our evolutionary history. My argument will take the form of a dilemma. For our evaluative judgments to be fitness conducive, they must be responsive to the right sort of external world properties. The non-reductive realist can provide such a set of properties. On the first horn of the dilemma, the anti-realist cannot. The realist, unlike the anti-realist, can explain why our evaluative judgments are fitness conducive. The realist has won the explanatory battle. On the second horn of the dilemma, the anti-realist can provide a set of non-normative external world properties that our evaluative attitudes are responsive to. In doing so, the anti-realist has provided the heretofore-missing component of the reductive realist’s project. Again, the realist has won.
|Keywords||Moral realism Darwinism Moral skepticism Naturalism|
|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
David Enoch (2011). Taking Morality Seriously: A Defense of Robust Realism. Oxford University Press.
Brian Leiter (2001). Moral Facts and Best Explanations. Social Philosophy and Policy 18 (02):79-.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Christian Miller (2007). The Conditions of Realism. Journal of Philosophical Research 32:95-132.
Knut Olav Skarsaune (2011). Darwin and Moral Realism: Survival of the Iffiest. Philosophical Studies 152 (2):229-243.
Janet Folina (1995). Putnam, Realism and Truth. Synthese 103 (2):141--52.
Antti Keskinen (2012). Quine on Objects: Realism or Anti-Realism? Theoria 78 (2):128-145.
Sharon Street (2006). A Darwinian Dilemma for Realist Theories of Value. Philosophical Studies 127 (1):109-166.
Jonah N. Schupbach (2007). Must the Scientific Realist Be a Rationalist? Synthese 154 (2):329-334.
Malcolm Budd (2005). Aesthetic Realism and Emotional Qualities of Music. British Journal of Aesthetics 45 (2):111-122.
Bernhard Weiss (2007). Anti-Realist Truth and Anti-Realist Meaning. American Philosophical Quarterly 44 (3):213 - 228.
Wolfram Hinzen (2000). Anti-Realist Semantics. Erkenntnis 52 (3):281-311.
Jamin Asay (2013). Truthmaking, Metaethics, and Creeping Minimalism. Philosophical Studies 163 (1):213-232.
Stephen Mumford (2005). Laws and Lawlessness. Synthese 144 (3):397?413.
Towfic Shomar (2008). Bohr as a Phenomenological Realist. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 39 (2):321 - 349.
William Child (2007). Dreaming, Calculating, Thinking: Wittgenstein and Anti-Realism About the Past. Philosophical Quarterly 57 (227):252–272.
N. Tennant (2000). Anti-Realist Aporias. Mind 109 (436):825--854.
Added to index2012-03-30
Total downloads44 ( #37,267 of 1,098,976 )
Recent downloads (6 months)10 ( #19,089 of 1,098,976 )
How can I increase my downloads?