Graduate studies at Western
Environmental Ethics 17 (2):209-220 (1995)
|Abstract||Peter Wenz has recently distinguished various forms of moral pluralism in an effort to dissolve the controversy over monism and pluralism. I argue that the distinctions are not really helpful once the methodology and the substance of science are brought to bear on ethics. Theories in ethics and science alike are subject to context-dependent methodological trade-offs. Hence, the category of theories should be heterogeneous. Monism and pluralism are at cross-purposes since they endorse different unanalyzed notions of theory. Awareness of heterogeneity among theories is helpful in dismissing the controversy|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Kelly Trogdon (2009). Monism and Intrinsicality. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87 (1):127 – 148.
Gary E. Varner (1991). No Holism Without Pluralism. Environmental Ethics 13 (2):175-179.
Peter S. Wenz (1993). Minimal, Moderate, and Extreme Moral Pluralism. Environmental Ethics 15 (1):61-74.
Max Hunter Harrison (1932). Hindu Monism and Pluralism as Found in the Upanishads and in the Philosophies Dependent Upon Them. London [Etc.]H. Milford, Oxford University Press.
J. Baird Callicott (1994). Moral Monism in Environmental Ethics Defended. Journal of Philosophical Research 19:51-60.
Nicola Ciprotti & Luca Moretti (2009). Logical Pluralism is Compatible with Monism About Metaphysical Modality. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87 (2):275-284.
J. Baird Callicott (1990). The Case Against Moral Pluralism. Environmental Ethics 12 (2):99-124.
Matthew H. Slater (2005). Monism on the One Hand, Pluralism on the Other. Philosophy of Science 72 (1):22-42.
Andrew Light (1996). Callicott and Naess on Pluralism. Inquiry 39 (2):273 – 294.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads4 ( #189,291 of 739,403 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?