Authors
Marcus Arvan
University of Tampa
Abstract
Michael Huemer argues that cross-cultural convergence toward liberal moral values is evidence of objective moral progress, and by extension, evidence for moral realism. Nathan Cofnas claims to debunk Huemer’s argument by contending that convergence toward liberal moral values can be better explained by ‘two related non-truth-tracking processes’: self-interest and its long-term tendency to result in social conditions conducive to greater empathy. This article argues that although Cofnas successfully debunks Huemer’s convergence argument for one influential form of moral realism – Robust Moral Realism, which holds that moral facts are non-natural, stance-independent normative facts – Cofnas’s debunking argument broadly supports a second type of moral realism: Enlightened Self-Interest Realism, the view that moral facts are reducible to stance-dependent requirements of instrumental (‘means-end’) rationality. Finally, this article argues that insofar as different Enlightened Self-Interest Realist theories make specific predictions about the intra- and inter-personal mechanisms behind moral convergence toward liberalism, empirical observations of cross-cultural convergence can provide independent support for Enlightened Self-Interest Realism. I conclude that this is an important mark in favor of Enlightened Self-Interest Realism over Robust Moral Realism.
Keywords ethics  evolution  metaethics  moral realism  naturalism  non-naturalism  convergence  contractarianism  liberalism  Hobbes  fairness
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 69,078
External links

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.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

A Debunking Explanation for Moral Progress.Nathan Cofnas - 2020 - Philosophical Studies 177 (11):3171-3191.
Debunking Morality: Lessons From the EAAN Literature.Andrew Moon - 2017 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 98 (S1):208-226.
Methodological Naturalism in Metaethics.Daniel Nolan - 2017 - In Tristram McPherson & David Plunkett (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Metaethics. Routledge. pp. 659-673.
Yes to Realism! No to Nonnaturalism! Ulysses - 2009 - Kritike 3 (1):168-177.
Debunking Nontheistic Moral Realism.Adam Lloyd Johnson - 2015 - Philosophia Christi 17 (2):353-367.
Environ-Moral Realism: Some Prospects for Environmental Metaethics.John Mizzoni - 2003 - Journal of Philosophical Research 28:191-221.
Environ-Moral Realism: Some Prospects for Environmental Metaethics.John Mizzoni - 2003 - Journal of Philosophical Research 28:191-221.
God and Morality.Anne Jeffrey - 2019 - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
The Puzzle of Pure Moral Motivation.Adam Lerner - 2018 - Oxford Studies in Metaethics 13:123-144.
Redeeming Love:Rousseau and Eighteenth-Century Moral Philosophy.Mark S. Cladis - 2000 - Journal of Religious Ethics 28 (2):221-251.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2022-02-07

Total views
20 ( #554,969 of 2,498,795 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
20 ( #42,703 of 2,498,795 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes