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 25:471-487 (2000)
After briefly arguing that neither (Kantian or utilitarian) rule-based ethics nor virtue ethics offers promise as a moral theory, I state that argument by analogy (i.e., deliberation within coherence constraints) is a satisfactory form of moral deliberation. I show that what is right must be whatever corresponds to the largest and most coherent set of a society’s moral values. Since we would not know how to interpret the claim that what is right might be repugnant to all our shared moral values, I argue that a definitional naturalist position passes Moore’s open question test. “X is right” just means “performing X satisfies the largest and most coherent set of our altruistic and self-interested desires.” On this view, moral properties are real relational properties. I raise and respond to several objections.
|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
James A. Ryan (1997). A Defence of Mencius' Ethical Naturalism. Asian Philosophy 7 (1):23 – 36.
Mylan Engel Jr (2012). Coherentism and the Epistemic Justification of Moral Beliefs: A Case Study in How to Do Practical Ethics Without Appeal to a Moral Theory. Southern Journal of Philosophy 50 (1):50-74.
Torbjörn Tännsjö (2011). Applied Ethics. A Defence. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14 (4):397-406.
James A. Ryan (1998). Moral Philosophy and Moral Psychology in Mencius. Asian Philosophy 8 (1):47 – 64.
Neil Sinclair (2006). Two Kinds of Naturalism in Ethics. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 9 (4):417 - 439.
David Copp (2003). Why Naturalism? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 6 (2):179-200.
Seiriol Morgan (2006). Naturalism and Normativity. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 72 (2):319 - 344.
R. G. Swinburne (1976). The Objectivity of Morality. Philosophy 51 (195):5 - 20.
John Collier & Michael Stingl (1993). Evolutionary Naturalism and the Objectivity of Morality. Biology and Philosophy 8 (1):47-60.
Caj Strandberg (2004). In Defence of the Open Question Argument. Journal of Ethics 8 (2):179-196.
Richard Joyce, Metaethical Pluralism: How Both Moral Naturalism and Moral Skepticism May Be Permissible Positions.
SvenOve Hansson (2000). Coherentist Contraction. Journal of Philosophical Logic 29 (3):315-330.
Added to index2011-12-02
Total downloads30 ( #139,357 of 1,934,424 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #76,841 of 1,934,424 )
How can I increase my downloads?