Authors
Bart Streumer
University of Groningen
Daan Evers
University of Groningen
Abstract
Terence Cuneo and Russ Shafer-Landau have recently proposed a new version of moral nonnaturalism, according to which there are nonnatural moral concepts and truths but no nonnatural moral facts. This view entails that moral error theorists are conceptually deficient. We explain why moral error theorists are not conceptually deficient. We then argue that this explanation reveals what is wrong with Cuneo and Shafer-Landau’s view.
Keywords moral nonnaturalism  moral error theory  conceptual truths
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2016
DOI 10.26556/jesp.v10i1.183
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: 64,209
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

View all 11 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Why Care About Moral Fixed Points?David Killoren - 2016 - Analytic Philosophy 57 (2):165-173.
Moral Fixed Points and Conceptual Deficiency: Reply to Ingram (2015).Kyriacou Christos - 2017 - Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 2017 (3):1-9.
Are Moral Error Theorists Intellectually Vicious?Stephen Ingram - 2018 - Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 13 (1):80-89.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2015-03-31

Total views
210 ( #49,768 of 2,455,133 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
11 ( #59,155 of 2,455,133 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes