Philosophical Studies 166 (1):45-64 (2013)

Authors
Charlie Kurth
Western Michigan University
Abstract
A prominent argument for moral realism notes that we are inclined to accept realism in science because scientific inquiry supports a robust set of critical practices—error, improvement, explanation, and the like. It then argues that because morality displays a comparable set of critical practices, a claim to moral realism is just as warranted as a claim to scientific realism. But the argument is only as strong as its central analogy—and here there is trouble. If the analogy between the critical practices of science and morality is loosely interpreted, the argument does not support moral realism—for paradigmatically constructivist discourses like fashion display the relevant critical practices just as well. So if the argument is to have force, the realist must say more about why the critical practices of morality are sufficiently like those of science to warrant realism. But this cannot be done—moral inquiry differs from scientific inquiry in too many important ways. So the analogy with the critical practices of science fails to vindicate moral realism. But there are further lessons: in looking closely at the critical practices of our moral discourse—and in comparing them to the critical practices of science and fashion—we gain insight into what is distinctive about morality objectivity and moral metaphysics
Keywords Moral realism  Moral constructivism  Critical practices  Analogy argument  Moral objectivity
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s11098-012-0020-7
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive
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

Truth and Objectivity.Crispin Wright - 1992 - Harvard University Press.
A Darwinian Dilemma for Realist Theories of Value.Sharon Street - 2006 - Philosophical Studies 127 (1):109-166.

View all 26 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Cornell Realism, Explanation, and Natural Properties.Luis R. G. Oliveira & Timothy Perrine - 2017 - European Journal of Philosophy 25 (2):1021-1038.
Expressivism and Innocent Mistakes.Charlie Kurth - 2014 - Ethics 124 (2):370-383.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Quasi-Realism's Problem of Autonomous Effects.Sergio Tenenbaum - 2003 - Philosophical Quarterly 53 (212):392–409.
God and Moral Realism.Katherin Rogers - 2005 - International Philosophical Quarterly 45 (1):103-118.
Moral and Epistemic Open-Question Arguments.Chris Heathwood - 2009 - Philosophical Books 50 (2):83-98.
The Explanationist Argument for Moral Realism.Neil Sinclair - 2011 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 41 (1):1-24.
Moral Realism and Teleosemantics.Richard Joyce - 2001 - Biology and Philosophy 16 (5):723-31.
Moral Relativism in Context.James Beebe - 2010 - Noûs 44 (4):691-724.
Could Morality Have a Source?Chris Heathwood - 2012 - Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 6 (2):1-19.
The Problem of Obligation, the Finite Rational Will, and Kantian Value Realism.Anne Margaret Baxley - 2012 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 55 (6):567-583.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2012-09-04

Total views
508 ( #10,384 of 2,326,038 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
22 ( #29,442 of 2,326,038 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes