Graduate studies at Western
Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 81 (3):246–272 (2000)
|Abstract||Much moral skepticism stems from the charge that moral facts do not figure in causal explanations. However, philosophers committed to normative epistemological discourse (by which I mean our practice of evaluating beliefs as justified or unjustified, and so forth) are in no position to demand that normative facts serve such a role, since epistemic facts are causally impotent as well. I argue instead that pragmatic reasons can justify our continued participation in practices which, like morality and epistemology, do not serve the function of causal explanation. Finally, I defend this pragmatic justification of morality and epistemology against a number of objections, including the objection that it confuses practical and theoretical justification.|
|Keywords||morality epistemology explanation fact knowledge normativity|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Eric Vogelstein (2011). Morality, Reasons, and Sentiments. Philosophical Studies 155 (3):421-432.
Peter Schulte (2012). The Difference Between Moral and Rational “Oughts”: An Expressivist Account. [REVIEW] Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (2):159-174.
M. Janvid (2004). Epistemological Naturalism and the Normativity Objection. Erkenntnis 60 (1):35-49.
Mikael Janvid (2004). Epistemological Naturalism and the Normativity Objection or From Normativity to Constitutivity. Erkenntnis 60 (1):35 - 49.
Mikael Janvid (2004). Epistemological Naturalism and the Normativity Objection or From Normativity to Constitutivity. Erkenntnis 60 (1):35-49.
Jeremy Randel Koons (2006). An Argument Against Reduction in Morality and Epistemology. Philosophical Investigations 29 (3):250–274.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads17 ( #78,069 of 722,936 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #36,863 of 722,936 )
How can I increase my downloads?