David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophers' Imprint 8 (6):1-16 (2008)
Some philosophers have been attracted to the idea that morality is an autonomous domain. One version of this idea is the thesis that non-moral claims are irrelevant to the justification of fundamental normative ethical theories. However, this autonomy thesis appears to be in tension with a pair of apparent features of metaethical theorizing. On one hand, metaethics seemingly aims to explain how morality fits into our broader conception of the world. On the other, metaethical theorizing appears to have potential normative ethical implications. This apparent tension may help to explain some contemporary worries about metaethics as a philosophical project. This paper examines three responses to this tension. The first response seeks to resolve the tension by claiming that metaethical theories must be neutral between normative ethical theories. The second response seeks to eliminate the tension by appealing to a deep divide between practical and theoretical reasoning. I show that each of these responses would require a radical reconception of metaethics. I argue that such a reconception is not required in order to resolve the apparent tension between metaethics and the autonomy thesis. I show that this tension is merely apparent, and can be dissolved without casting doubt on metaethics as a project. I argue that on the picture that results, whether the autonomy thesis is true itself depends upon metaethical fact.
|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
Tristram McPherson (2011). Against Quietist Normative Realism. Philosophical Studies 154 (2):223-240.
Tristram McPherson (2012). Unifying Moral Methodology. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 93 (4):523-549.
Kevin Toh (2013). Jurisprudential Theories and First‐Order Legal Judgments. Philosophy Compass 8 (5):457-471.
Patrick Clipsham (2013). In Defense of Anti‐Archimedean Moral Realism: A Response to Recent Critics. Metaphilosophy 44 (4):470-484.
Patrick Clipsham (2015). Developing a Post-Prior Taxonomy of Ethical Sentences. Philosophia 43 (3):801-820.
Similar books and articles
Carla Bagnoli, Constructivism in Metaethics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Mark Schroeder (forthcoming). What Matters About Metaethics? In Peter Singer (ed.), Does Anything Really Matter? Responses to Parfit.
Mark Schroeder (2012). Philosophy of Language for Metaethics. In Gillian Russell & Delia Graff Fara (eds.), The Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Language. Routledge
Michael Brady (ed.) (2011). New Waves in Metaethics. Palgrave Macmillan.
Karen Jones (2006). Metaethics and Emotions Research: A Response to Prinz. Philosophical Explorations 9 (1):45-53.
Frederick Rauscher (1997). How a Kantian Can Accept Evolutionary Metaethics. Biology and Philosophy 12 (3):303-326.
Sharon Street (2010). What is Constructivism in Ethics and Metaethics? Philosophy Compass 5 (5):363-384.
Andrew Reisner (2010). Metaethics for Everyone. Problema 4:39-64.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads83 ( #50,222 of 1,796,539 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #135,677 of 1,796,539 )
How can I increase my downloads?