David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Philosophical Research 26:423-433 (2001)
Hare shares with other critics an objection to the use of moral judgments in the method of reflective equilibrium. However, the reasoning behind his criticismdistinguishes it from the more common criticisms that the use of moral judgments is unwarranted because of their suspect origin. While these objections challenge the epistemic worth of moral beliefs, Hare’s objection goes beyond to also critique the deeper theoretical commitments of the method. Hare’s acceptance of a strict differentiation between the meaning and applications of words and consequent rejection of holistic justification follow from his acceptance of the analytic/synthetic distinction, while Rawls’s holistic method of theory justification requires a rejection of the analytic/synthetic distinction. In this essay, I explain how Hare’s criticism of the method of reflective equilibrium and his acceptance of the meaning/application distinction result from his acceptance of the analytic/synthetic distinction and draw from this specific discussion more general conclusions regarding the implications of accepting or rejecting the analytic/synthetic distinction for the use of moral judgments in moral theory justification. I conclude that an acceptance of the distinction precludes the use of moral judgments, while its rejection leaves open the possibility that they could be used, if the issue of their epistemic status can be successfully resolved
|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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Gabriele Gava (2015). Kant's Synthetic and Analytic Method in the Critique of Pure Reason and the Distinction Between Philosophical and Mathematical Syntheses. European Journal of Philosophy 23 (3):728-749.
Willem R. de Jong (2010). The Analytic-Synthetic Distinction and the Classical Model of Science: Kant, Bolzano and Frege. Synthese 174 (2):237-261.
Richard Swinburne (1984). Analytic/Synthetic. American Philosophical Quarterly 21 (1):31 - 42.
A. W. Moore (1997). The Underdetermination/Indeterminacy Distinction and the Analytic/Synthetic Distinction. Erkenntnis 46 (1):5-32.
Seung-Kee Lee (2009). The Synthetic a Priori in Kant and German Idealism. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 91 (3):288-328.
Peter Pagin (2008). Indeterminacy and the Analytic/Synthetic Distinctions: A Survey. Synthese 164 (1):1 - 18.
Carol A. Van Kirk (1986). Synthesis, Sensibility, and Kant's Philosophy of Mathematics. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1986:135 - 144.
Paul A. Boghossian (1994). Inferential-Role Semantics and the Analytic/Synthetic Distinction. Philosophical Studies 73 (2-3):109-122.
Christopher Michael Cloos (2009). The Evidential Weight of Considered Moral Judgments. Dissertation, San Jose State University
Sylvain Auroux (1985). The Analytic and the Synthetic as Linguistic Topics. Topoi 4 (2):193-199.
Added to index2011-12-02
Total downloads26 ( #161,816 of 1,938,528 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #288,361 of 1,938,528 )
How can I increase my downloads?