Philosophical Quarterly 48 (192):359-365 (1998)
Crispin Wright holds that moral realism is implausible since it is not a priori that every moral disagreement involves cognitive shortcomings. I develop two responses to this argument. First, a realist may argue that it holds for at least one of the parties to any disagreement that he holds false background beliefs (moral or otherwise) or that his verdict to the disputed judgment fails to cohere with his system. Second, he may argue that if none of the verdicts involves shortcomings, the appropriate conclusion is that the disagreement is not genuine, since we must otherwise attribute an inexplicable error
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
Citations of this work BETA
Similar books and articles
Moral Disagreement and Moral Expertise.Sarah McGrath - 2008 - In Russ Shafer-Landau (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaethics Vol. 3. Oxford University Press. pp. 87-108.
The Moral Evil Demons.Ralph Wedgwood - 2010 - In Richard Feldman & Ted Warfield (eds.), Disagreement. Oxford University Press.
Private Languages and Private Theorists.David Bain - 2004 - Philosophical Quarterly 54 (216):427 - 434.
The Inaugural Address: Moral Values, Projection and Secondary Qualities.Crispin Wright - 1988 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 62:1 - 26.
Review: Folke Tersman: Moral Disagreement. [REVIEW]B. Majors - 2008 - Mind 117 (466):529-532.
Is an Unpictorial Mathematical Platonism Possible?Charles Sayward - 2002 - Journal of Philosophical Research 27:199-212.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads50 ( #101,858 of 2,153,589 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #398,274 of 2,153,589 )
How can I increase my downloads?