David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In David Copp (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory. Oxford University Press 186--218 (2006)
This chapter explores the debate between contemporary projectivists or expressivists, and the advocates of sensibility theory. Both positions are best viewed as forms of sentimentalism — the theory that evaluative concepts must be explicated by appeal to the sentiments. It argues that the sophisticated interpretation of such notions as “true” and “objective” that are offered by defenders of these competing views ultimately undermines the significance of their meta-ethical disputes over “cognitivism” and “realism” about value. Their fundamental disagreement lies in moral psychology; it concerns how best to understand the emotions to which sentimentalist theories must appeal.
|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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Nenad Miščević (2006). Moral Concepts: From Thickness to Response-Dependence. [REVIEW] Acta Analytica 21 (1):3-32.
Nenad Miscevic´ (2006). Moral Concepts: From Thickness to Response-Dependence. [REVIEW] Acta Analytica 21 (1):3 - 32.
Similar books and articles
Justin D'Arms & Daniel Jacobson (2006). Sensibility Theory and Projectivism. In David Copp (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory. Oxford University Press 186--218.
Xiusheng Liu (2002). Mencius, Hume, and Sensibility Theory. Philosophy East and West 52 (1):75-97.
Jonas Olson (2011). Projectivism and Error in Hume's Ethics. Hume Studies 37 (1):19-42.
Kent Bach (2007). Knowledge, Wine, and Taste: What Good is Knowledge (in Enjoying Wine). In Barry C. Smith (ed.), Questions of Taste: The Philosophy of Wine. Oxford University Press 21--40.
Theodore Gracyk (2011). Delicacy in Hume's Theory of Taste. Journal of Scottish Philosophy 9 (1):1-16.
Richard Joyce (2009). Is Moral Projectivism Empirically Tractable? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 12 (1):53 - 75.
John Hyman (2002). Is Beauty in the Eye of the Beholder? Think 1 (1):81-92.
R. M. Sainsbury (1998). Projections and Relations. The Monist 81 (1):133-160.
Lorraine Besser-Jones (2010). Hume on Pride-in-Virtue: A Reliable Motive? Hume Studies 36 (2):171-192.
Timothy M. Costelloe (2007). So Forward to Imagine. The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 10:117-122.
Simon Kirchin (2000). Quasi-Realism, Sensibility Theory, and Ethical Relativism. Inquiry 43 (4):413 – 427.
Berys Gaut (2010). Nehamas on Beauty and Love. British Journal of Aesthetics 50 (2):199-204.
Neil Saccamano (2011). Aesthetically Non-Dwelling: Sympathy, Property, and the House of Beauty in Hume's Treatise. Journal of Scottish Philosophy 9 (1):37-58.
Alexander Rueger (2007). Kant and the Aesthetics of Nature. British Journal of Aesthetics 47 (2):138-155.
Added to index2011-01-21
Total downloads54 ( #88,943 of 1,926,197 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #269,835 of 1,926,197 )
How can I increase my downloads?