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):275 - 294 (2003)
Many response-dependence theorists equate moral truth with the generation of some affective psychological response: what makes this action wrong, as opposed to right, is that it would cause (or merit) affective response of type R (perhaps under ideal conditions). Since our affective nature is purely contingent, and not necessarily shared by all rational creatures (or even by all humans), response-dependence threatens to lead to relativism. In this paper, I will argue that emotional responses and moral features do not align in the way predicted by the response-dependence theorist who wishes to tie morality to emotional affect. I further argue that since response-dependence accounts that tie morality to any sort of affect (be it an emotion, a desire, a desire to desire, or so on) cannot explain the objectivity and universality of morality; and since we do not need a psychological response to play a truth-constituting role in morality in order to explain the normativity or content of morality, we should reject such response-dependence accounts.
|Keywords||affect disposition emotion morality relativism response-dependence value|
|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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Alexander Miller (1998). Rule-Following, Response-Dependence, and McDowell's Debate with Anti-Realism. In European Review of Philosophy, Volume 3: Response-Dependence. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Andrew Howat (2005). Pragmatism, Truth and Response-Dependence. Facta Philosophica 7 (2):231-253.
Jacob Busch (2006). Does the Issue of Response-Dependence Have Any Consequences for Realism? Croatian Journal of Philosophy 6 (1):27-39.
Nathaniel Goldberg (2011). Interpreting Thomas Kuhn as a Response-Dependence Theorist. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 19 (5):729 - 752.
Frank A. Hindriks (2006). Acceptance-Dependence: A Social Kind of Response-Dependence. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 87 (4):481–498.
Rafael De Clercq (2002). Two Conceptions of Response-Dependence. Philosophical Studies 107 (2):159 - 177.
Rafael de Clercq (2002). Two Conceptions of Response-Dependence. Philosophical Studies 107 (2):159-177.
Nick Zangwill (2003). Against Moral Response-Dependence. Erkenntnis 59 (3):285 - 290.
Jeremy Randel Koons (2003). Why Response-Dependence Theories of Morality Are False. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 6 (3):275-294.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads20 ( #71,719 of 1,089,063 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #42,757 of 1,089,063 )
How can I increase my downloads?