Graduate studies at Western
Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 86 (4):544–555 (2005)
|Abstract||In Ruling Passions, Simon Blackburn contends that we should reject sensibility theory because it serves to support a conservative complacency. Blackburn's strategy is attractive in that it seeks to win this metaethical dispute – which ultimately stems from a deep disagreement over antireductionism – on the basis of an uncontroversial normative consideration. Therefore, Blackburn seems to offer an easy solution to an apparently intractable debate. We will show, however, that Blackburn's argument against sensibility theory does not succeed; it is no more supportive of conservative complacency than Blackburn's noncognitivism. A victory for noncognitivism cannot be so easily won.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Ann V. Murphy (2010). “All Things Considered:” Sensibility and Ethics in the Later Merleau-Ponty and Derrida. [REVIEW] Continental Philosophy Review 42 (4):435-447.
Russell Shafer‐Landau (2001). Simon Blackburn, Ruling Passions: A Theory of Practical Reasoning:Ruling Passions: A Theory of Practical Reasoning. Ethics 111 (4):799-804.
Cezary Cieśliński (2007). Deflationism, Conservativeness and Maximality. Journal of Philosophical Logic 36 (6):695 - 705.
Volker Halbach (1999). Conservative Theories of Classical Truth. Studia Logica 62 (3):353-370.
Nick Zangwill (1993). Supervenience and Anomalous Monism: Blackburn on Davidson. Philosophical Studies 71 (1):59-79.
Xiusheng Liu (2002). Mencius, Hume, and Sensibility Theory. Philosophy East and West 52 (1):75-97.
Simon Blackburn (1998/2000). Ruling Passions. Oxford University Press.
Simon Kirchin (2000). Quasi-Realism, Sensibility Theory, and Ethical Relativism. Inquiry 43 (4):413 – 427.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads44 ( #29,844 of 739,317 )
Recent downloads (6 months)15 ( #8,405 of 739,317 )
How can I increase my downloads?