David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Social Philosophy and Policy 18 (2):177 (2001)
The search for moral objectivity has been constant throughout the history of philosophy, although interpretations of the nature and scope of objectivity have varied. One aim of the pursuit of moral objectivity has been the demonstration of what may be termed its epistemological thesis, that is, the claim that the truth of assertions of the goodness or rightness of moral acts is as legitimate, reliable, or valid as the truth of assertions involving other forms of human knowledge, such as common sense, practical expertise, science, or mathematics. Another aim of the quest for moral objectivity may be termed its pragmatic formulation ; this refers to the development of a method or procedure that will mediate among conflicting moral views in order to realize a convergence or justified agreement about warranted or true moral conclusions. In the ethical theories of Aristotle, David Hume, and John Dewey, theories that represent three of the four variants of ethical naturalism that are surveyed in this essay, the epistemological thesis and the pragmatic formulation are integrated or combined. The distinction between these two elements is significant for the present essay, however, since I want to show that linguistic naturalism, the fourth variant I shall examine, has provided a demonstration of the epistemological thesis about moral knowledge, even if the pragmatic formulation has not been successfully realized
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
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.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
John Collier & Michael Stingl (1993). Evolutionary Naturalism and the Objectivity of Morality. Biology and Philosophy 8 (1):47-60.
Jennifer Tannoch-Bland (1997). From Aperspectival Objectivity to Strong Objectivity: The Quest for Moral Objectivity. Hypatia 12 (1):155 - 178.
Susana Nuccetelli & Gary Seay (eds.) (2011). Ethical Naturalism: Current Debates. Cambridge University Press.
Steven Ross (2001). Two Problems of Moral Objectivity. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 1 (1):49-62.
Brian Leiter (2007). Naturalizing Jurisprudence: Essays on American Legal Realism and Naturalism in Legal Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
Guy Axtell (1993). Naturalism, Normativity, and Explanation: The Scientistic Biases of Contemporary Naturalism. Metaphilosophy 24 (3):253-274.
Veronica Rodriguez-Blanco (2010). Objectivity in Law. Philosophy Compass 5 (3):240-249.
David Copp (2003). Why Naturalism? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 6 (2):179-200.
Stephen Gaukroger (2012). Objectivity: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
Wesley J. Wildman (2013). Corrington's Ecstatic Naturalism in Light of the Scientific Study of Religion. American Journal of Theology and Philosophy 34 (1):3-16.
Christopher Grau (2009). A Critical Study of Alice Crary's Beyond Moral Judgment. Philo 12 (1):88-104.
Alvin Plantinga (2010). Naturalism, Theism, Obligation and Supervenience. Faith and Philosophy 27 (3):247-272.
Mark Hanin (2012). Naturalistic Moral Realism and Moral Disagreement: David Copp's Account. Res Publica 18 (4):283-301.
Vance G. Morgan (1998). Cognitive Science, Naturalism, and Divine Prototypes. Philosophy and Theology 11 (1):25-46.
Added to index2010-08-31
Total downloads38 ( #126,782 of 1,924,873 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #187,091 of 1,924,873 )
How can I increase my downloads?