Abstract
Some very similar problems and disputes arise in ethics, aesthetics, and the philosophy of perception. One of the most basic of these parallel controversies concerns the connection between certain features we attribute to objects and certain mental responses that somehow or other provide a basis for these attributions.1 Three examples of such feature-response pairs drawn from ethics, aesthetics, and philosophy of perception respectively are (a) moral goodness and moral approval, (b) funniness and amusement, and (c) something’s being red and its looking red. What makes these and many other examples controversial is the fact that one kind of philosopher (the realist) finds it plausible to claim first that whether an object possesses one or another of these features is independent of and prior to the question whether it provokes the correlative response and second that the response itself is a genuinely cognitive state of mind in some way directed to the feature as part of its object.2 While another kind of philosopher (the mentalist) finds it plausible to deny both these claims and to assert instead that the response has conceptual priority over the feature and that what the realist takes in the response as cognitive of the feature is really some noncognitive attitude, disposition, sensation, or act of will. In other words, the realist regards the response as a response to the feature while the mentalist sees the feature as some sort of construction out of the response. In considering the dispute it will be convenient to have a way of generalizing over all feature-response pairs that tend to generate this kind of controversy; thus I shall take the liberty of speaking of C-pairs (‘C’ for ‘Controversial’) and, in the context of discussing such pairs, C-features and C-responses.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
I mean ‘feature’ to be given a neutral reading according to which, e. g., even a non-cognitivist could call moral goodness a ‘feature’ of things. Note that R. Brandt in Ethical Theory (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1959), p. 265, correlates ethical features and responses by means of the following principle: “... a ‘corresponding’ attitude is the attitude someone justifiably has if some ethical statement is properly asserted by him.” But for present purposes (mainly to avoid begging questions in setting up the problem) I prefer to leave the principles of correlation undefined.
Some recent writers in ethics (e. g. S.W. Blackburn in ‘Moral Realism’, J. Casey, ed., Morality and Moral Reasoning (London: Methuen, 1971), pp. 101–124) use a weaker sense of ‘realist’ to mark off theories holding that feature-ascribing sentences are true or false in virtue of their correspondence or noncorrespondence with extra-linguistic fact. But my stronger sense of ‘realist’ also implies that the feature is mind-independent in the manner indicated. All naturalistic theories that count as nonrealist in my scheme count as realist in Blackburn’s.
See Sidgwick, The Methods of Ethics, Seventh Edition, (London: Macmillan, 1907), p. 27 for a classic statement of the realist view of moral feeling. See also Philippa Foot’s arguments in ‘Moral Beliefs’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 59 (1958-59), that moral attitudes are internally related to their objects.
For Locke’s account of the distinction between primary and secondary qualities see Essay Concerning Human Understanding Book II, Chapters viii, 9-26 and xxiii, 9-11; and Book IV, Chapter in, 11-13 and 28.
Stevenson in ‘The Emotive Conception of Ethics and Its Cognitive Implications’, Facts and Values (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963), esp. p. 67, finds an essential role for thought in the formation of ethical attitudes. Frankena, a noncognitivist of a different sort, suggests that ethical assertions imply the thought that others will under certain conditions share the relevant attitude. See Ethics, Second Edition (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1973), p. 108.
John McDowell drew my attention to David Wiggins’ use of the ‘perspective’ metaphor to express a related point. The possession of a range of affective, motivational or sensory responses creates the perspective without which certain features could not be descried. See the ‘Philosophical Lecture: Truth, Invention and the Meaning of Life’, forthcoming in the Proceedings of the British Academy, 1976.
See Frankena, ‘Obligation and Motivation in Recent Moral Philosophy’ in A.I. Melden, ed., Essays in Moral Philosophy (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1958), pp.40–81.
R. Firth’s Ideal Observer theory is a prominent example of the former view that could be modified to fit the latter as well. See ‘Ethical Absolutism and the Ideal Observer’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, XII (1952), pp. 317-345.
Both Brandt (Ethical Theory, p. 267) and Frankena (Ethics, pp. 110-113) endorse this qualification.
For Stevenson, the former clearly derives from the latter. See Ethics and Language (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1944), Chapter 3. esp. sections 6-7.
A Treatise of Human Nature, ed. L.A. Selby-Bigge (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1888), p. 458. See also pp. 413-418.
But see G. Pitcher ‘Pain Perception’, The Philosophical Review, LXXIX (July 1970), pp. 368–393.
For a recent discussion of issues related to this criterion, see C. Wellman, ‘Ethical Disagreement and Objective Truth’, American Philosophical Quarterly, 12 (July, 1975), 211–221.
As Firth does in the Ideal Observer Theory.
Some relevant passages: Plato, Meno, 77b-78b, Gorgias, 468c, Protagoras, 352a-355d; Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics VII, iii, esp. 1147b; Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, p. 460 (Royal Prussian Academy Edition), and Critique of Practical Reason Ch. III; Sidgwick, The Methods of Ethics, p. 34.
By F. Styley, for example, in “Aesthetic Concepts,” The Philosophical Review, LXVIII (1959), 421–450.
See Jonathan Bennett’s defense of the distinction between primary and secondary qualities in Locke, Berkeley, Hume: Central Themes (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971) Ch. IV, esp. section 20.
This is perhaps part of what Moore meant by his odd claim that intrinsic goodness is not an intrinsic property of a thing that possesses it. See ‘The Conception of Intrinsic Value’ in Philosphical Studies (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1922), esp. pp. 272-273.
I am thinking of realists who accept a reduction of C-features to the properties on which others would say they supervene — e. g. a deontologist who identifies moral rightness with the disjunctive property of falling under one or another of such and such rules or a color theorist who identifies the colors with various physical properties.
Cf. Bennett, op. cit., p. 98.
The realist may point out here that a hold on reality is more than a hold on the objects of that reality. For if these eccentricities go far enough we will in fact regard a person as mad.
Cf. Wittgenstein’s claim in Philosophical Investigations II, xi p. 217, that even “if God had looked into our minds he would not have been able to see there whom we were speaking of and the immediately preceding remarks. See also Part I, sections 452-453.
W. Alston provides an interesting example of this line of argument — as addressed to emotivists — in ‘Moral Attitudes and Moral Judgments,’ Nous II (Feb. 1968), 1–23.
Firth puts this forward as a live possibility for both color and moral terms in ‘Ethical Absolutism and the Ideal Observer,’ p. 324.
The realist might try to appropriate S. Kripke’s comments — intended for a quite different dispute — on the force of intuitive content. See ‘Naming and Necessity,’ G. Harman and D. Davidson eds., Semantics of Natural Language (Dordrecht-Holland, 1972), pp. 265-266.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1978 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Quinn, W.S. (1978). Moral and Other Realisms: Some Initial Difficulties. In: Goldman, A.I., Kim, J. (eds) Values and Morals. Philosophical Studies Series in Philosophy, vol 13. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7634-5_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7634-5_14
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-8352-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-7634-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive