Why Response-Dependence Theories of Morality are False
Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 6 (3):275-294 (2003)
| Abstract | 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 | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,672 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesJeremy Randel Koons (2003). Why Response-Dependence Theories of Morality Are False. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 6 (3):275 - 294.
Nick Zangwill (2003). Against Moral Response-Dependence. Erkenntnis 59 (3):285 - 290.
Michael Watkins & James Shelley (2012). Response-Dependence About Aesthetic Value. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 93 (3):338-352.
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.
Frank A. Hindriks (2006). Acceptance-Dependence: A Social Kind of Response-Dependence. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 87 (4):481–498.
Jason Kawall (2004). Moral Response-Dependence, Ideal Observers, and the Motive of Duty: Responding to Zangwill. Erkenntnis 60 (3):357-369.
Nathaniel Goldberg (2011). Interpreting Thomas Kuhn as a Response-Dependence Theorist. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 19 (5):729 - 752.
Jacob Busch (2006). Does the Issue of Response-Dependence Have Any Consequences for Realism? Croatian Journal of Philosophy 6 (1):27-39.
Andrew Howat (2005). Pragmatism, Truth and Response-Dependence. Facta Philosophica 7 (2):231-253.
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.
Crispin Wright (1998). Euthyphronism and the Physicality of Colour: A Comment on Mark Powell's Realism or Response-Dependence?. In European Review of Philosophy, Volume 3: Response-Dependence. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Ralph Wedgwood (1997). The Essence of Response-Dependence. European Review of Philosophy 3:31-54.
Sebastian Lutz (2010). Concept Formation in Ethical Theories: Dealing with Polar Predicates. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 2010 (August):1-8.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-09-01Total downloads6 ( #145,547 of 549,046 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,185 of 549,046 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
