David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 6 (3):241-264 (2003)
In recent times, comments have been made and arguments advanced in support of metaethical positions based on the phenomenology of ethical experience – in other words, the feel that accompanies our ethical experiences. In this paper I cast doubt on whether ethical phenomenology supports metaethical positions to any great extent and try to tease out what is involved in giving a phenomenological argument. I consider three such positions: independent moral realism (IMR), another type of moral realism – sensibility theory – and noncognitivism. Phenomenological arguments have been used in support of the first two positions, but my general claim is that ethical phenomenology supports no metaethical position over any other.I discuss two types of phenomenological argument that might be offered in support of different types of moral realism, although I couch my debate in terms of IMR. The first argument asserts that ethical properties are not experienced in the way that rivals to IMR say we experience them. Against this I claim that it is odd to think that one could experience ethical properties as any metaethical theory characterizes them. The second argument is more complicated: the general thought is that an adequate metaethical theory should not distort our ethical experience unduly. I consider one aspect of our ethical experience – that there is some ethical authority to which our judgements answer – in order to illustrate this idea. I discuss why IMRealists might think that this phenomenon supports their position. Against them I claim that other metaethical positions might be able to accommodate the phenomenon of ethical authority. Even if they cannot, then, secondly, I argue that there are other aspects of our ethical experience that sit more naturally with other metaethical positions. Hence, one cannot argue that ethical phenomenology as a whole supports one theory over any others.
|Keywords||ethical features ethical phenomenology feel IMR noncognitivism sensibility theory|
|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
Terry Horgan & Mark Timmons (2005). Moral Phenomenology and Moral Theory. Philosophical Issues 15 (1):56–77.
Richard Joyce (2009). Is Moral Projectivism Empirically Tractable? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 12 (1):53 - 75.
Neil Sinclair (2012). Moral Realism, Face-Values and Presumptions. Analytic Philosophy 53 (2):158-179.
Similar books and articles
Malcom Haase (2012). Emotions and Ethics: A Foucauldian Framework for Becoming an Ethical Educator. Educational Philosophy and Theory 44 (3):276-288.
Sharon Street (2010). What is Constructivism in Ethics and Metaethics? Philosophy Compass 5 (5):363-384.
Stephen L. Darwall (ed.) (1997). Moral Discourse and Practice: Some Philosophical Approaches. Oxford University Press.
James A. Ryan (1997). A Defence of Mencius' Ethical Naturalism. Asian Philosophy 7 (1):23 – 36.
Susan C. Borkowski & Yusuf J. Ugras (1992). The Ethical Attitudes of Students as a Function of Age, Sex and Experience. Journal of Business Ethics 11 (12):961 - 979.
Tristram McPherson (2008). Metaethics & the Autonomy of Morality. Philosophers' Imprint 8 (6):1-16.
Jeremy Fantl (2006). Is Metaethics Morally Neutral? Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 87 (1):24–44.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads42 ( #78,864 of 1,724,768 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #134,580 of 1,724,768 )
How can I increase my downloads?