David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Inquiry 51 (4):390 – 411 (2008)
In their article entitled “Ethical Particularism and Patterns”, Frank Jackson, Philip Pettit, and Michael Smith (JPS henceforth) argue that moral particularism is a cognitively implausible theory since it appears to entail the view that one might have a skill that is not grounded in an ability to recognise and represent natural patterns in the world. This charge echoes the complaints of computational theorists of cognition against their embodied cognition counterparts, namely that, theories of cognition that eschew talk of mental representation are implausible qua theories of cognition. In both debates, the cognitive role of generalisation is central to the discussion; however, contrary to the received wisdom, I want to suggest that the dispute is not between generalisation or mental representation on the one hand and no generalisation or mental representation on the other, but rather between what I will call global and local generalisation. Using the dialogue between JPS and Dancy (our paradigm particularist) to frame this discussion, I show that by replacing Dancy's connectionist model for particularist reasoning with a case-based one, we not only vindicate his response to JPS, but we also gain insight into how it is the global/local distinction rather than the generalisation/no generalisation distinction that divides the two views.
|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
Francisco Varela, Evan Thompson & Eleanor Rosch (1991). The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. MIT Press.
Paul M. Churchland (1989). A Neurocomputational Perspective: The Nature of Mind and the Structure of Science. MIT Press.
Jon Barwise & John Perry (1981). Situations and Attitudes. Journal of Philosophy 78 (11):668-691.
Jonathan Dancy (1993). Moral Reasons. Blackwell.
Citations of this work BETA
Peter Shiu-Hwa Tsu (2016). Can the Canberrans’ Supervenience Argument Refute Shapeless Moral Particularism? Erkenntnis 81 (3):545-560.
Similar books and articles
Manuel Hernández-Iglesias (2006). Generalism Without Foundations. Acta Analytica 21 (2):71-86.
Kasper Lippert-rasmussen & Karsten Klint Jensen (2002). Does Particularism Solve the Moral Problem? Philosophical Explorations 5 (2):125 – 140.
Benedict Smith (2006). Particularism, Perception and Judgement. Acta Analytica 21 (2):12-29.
Marcello Guarini (2010). Particularism, Analogy, and Moral Cognition. Minds and Machines 20 (3):385-422.
Constantine Sandis (2006). Dancy Cartwright: Particularism in the Philosophy of Science. [REVIEW] Acta Analytica 21 (2):30-40.
Sean D. McKeever & Michael Ridge (2006). Particularism and the Contingent a Priori. Acta Analytica 21 (2):3-11.
Charles W. Kalish & Christopher A. Lawson (2007). Negative Evidence and Inductive Generalisation. Thinking and Reasoning 13 (4):394 – 425.
Jane Singleton (2004). Neither Generalism nor Particularism: Ethical Correctness is Located in General Ethical Theories. Journal of Moral Philosophy 1 (2):155-175.
Brad Hooker (2008). Moral Particularism and the Real World. In Mark Norris Lance, Matjaž Potrč & Vojko Strahovnik (eds.), Challenging Moral Particularism. Routledge 12--30.
Philipp Schwind (2006). A Critical Discussion of Jonathan Dancy's Moral Particularism. Dissertation, St. Andrews
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads49 ( #89,230 of 1,911,771 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #458,986 of 1,911,771 )
How can I increase my downloads?