DOCSLIB.ORG

Saving Moral Realism: Against Blackburn's Projectivism

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 5-2015 Saving Moral Realism: Against Blackburn's Projectivism Paul James Cummins Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/895 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] SAVING MORAL REALISM: AGAINST BLACKBURN’S PROJECTIVISM BY PAUL J. CUMMINS A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Philosophy in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The City University of New York 2015 © 2015 Paul J. Cummins All Rights Reserved ii This manuscript has been read and accepted by the Graduate Faculty in Philosophy in satisfaction of the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. David M. Rosenthal (Date) Chair of Examining Committee John Greenwood (Date) Executive Officer Steven M. Cahn Stefan Baumrin Rosamond Rhodes Supervisory Committee The City University of New York iii Abstract SAVING MORAL REALISM: AGAINST BLACKBURN’S PROJECTIVISM by Paul J. Cummins Adviser: Professor Steven M. Cahn In the argumentative dialectic between moral realists and non-cognitivist moral antirealists each side in the debate is typically thought to enjoy a different prima facie advantage over its rival. Moral realism gains plausibility from its truth-conditional semantics because it can explain the meaning of moral judgments on the same basis as ordinary propositions. However, many moral philosophers doubt moral realism because the theory is committed to the existence of moral properties, which are, in J. L. Mackie’s term, “queer.” Moral antirealism denies that these moral properties exist, and this is a principal reason why many moral philosophers endorse the theory. However, if moral terms like “good”, “immoral”, or “right” do not refer to anything, then the meanings of the moral judgments in which they appear cannot be explained with truth- conditional semantics; moral antirealists who wish to preserve moral practice need to develop a semantics that can accommodate it. The general perception of the dialectic is that moral realists have the upper hand in semantics, but a disadvantage in metaphysics, and vice versa for moral antirealists. This essay challenges this assumption. Simon Blackburn’s quasi-realism is one of the principal examples of non-cognitivism, a form of moral antirealism that tries to develop an alternative account of moral semantics in iv which the function of a moral proposition is not to express belief but attitude. Quasi-realism is Blackburn’s research program of developing a semantics for moral discourse that is consistent with projectivism, the metaphysics of his metaethical theory. After situating Blackburn’s project within the history of twentieth century metaethics, this essay reviews Blackburn’s quasi-realist semantics and criticizes it. This essay then aims to extend the metaethical dialectic by developing and critiquing an account of Blackburn’s projectivism. This essay interprets projectivism as an explanation of moral awareness that aims to explain the realist phenomenology of that experience when realist explanations of it fail. After developing an account of the mechanism of projectivism, this essay argues that a metaethical theory feature projectivism as its metaphysical element contrasts negatively with moral realism in several ways: e.g., if it postulates new mental states and more events to account for moral awareness, then its ontological economy is less certain; it does not solve a metaphysical problem, supervenience, that moral realism cannot; it is incompatible with desirable features of moral practice; it undermines Blackburn’s rejection of error theory. This essay then concludes that when assessing the dialectic between moral realism and non-cognitivist moral antirealism, it is inappropriate to presume a metaphysical advantage for the latter on the basis of the mere denial of the existence of moral properties. This suggests that non-cognitivist moral antirealists need to supplement their theories with more robust metaphysical research programs. v For Stacia. vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Since defending my dissertation the preeminent emotion I have experienced is appreciation for all of the support and encouragement that I have received as I worked on this dissertation. Composing these acknowledgements marks the completion of my preparations to deposit this dissertation; I saved this task for last because it makes me glad to publicly thank the people who contributed to the successful completion of this project. I have been exceedingly fortunate to have Steven Cahn as my advisor. When I approached Professor Cahn about supervising my dissertation, I came to him with nothing but the bare notion that non-cognitivist moral antirealism is wrong. Professor Cahn helped me to tailor my project to Simon Blackburn’s version of moral antirealism, and discussions with him clarified my objections to it. Professor Cahn also demystified the process of researching and writing the dissertation; I have learned so much about scholarship from Professor Cahn, and I doubt I would have ever gotten this project off the ground without his sage advice. I owe a debt of gratitude to the rest of my committee, Stefan Baumrin and Rosamond Rhodes. Professor Baumrin’s generosity in reviewing and commenting on multiple drafts of this dissertation was more than I hoped for or had a right to. Professor Baumrin’s comments and references to texts I overlooked were enormously valuable; this work and I have been the beneficiaries of his encyclopedic knowledge of twentieth century philosophy. Between drafts of the dissertation, papers, and talks, Professor Rhodes has reviewed more of my philosophical work than any other person, and her exhortations to clarity ring in my ears; to whatever degree this dissertation achieves the goal of clarity, she deserves the credit. In addition, Professor Rhodes’ suggestion to see the vicissitudes of the dissertation process as fun challenges has vii buoyed me more than once. I cannot fully express how much my committee’s generosity and confidence in me and my project has served as an inspiration; I can only promise that they will be models for my career. This dissertation also bears the imprint of other members of the Graduate Center’s philosophy faculty. The readers of my dissertation, David Rosenthal and Peter Simpson, also deserve thanks; both were incredibly accommodating in scheduling the defense and their questions and comments at the defense have stimulated new ideas to research. My interest in realism-antirealism debates and how to think about them have benefitted from studying with Professors Alberto Cordero, Michael Devitt, and Steven Ross. I am grateful for their influence. My classmates at the Graduate Center are amazingly bright, and I cannot ignore how the friends I have made have been professionally and personally enriching. I want to thank Jason Altilio, Matias Bulnes, and Jean-David Lafrance. Teaching has been an enormous part of my education at CUNY; when you spend so much time with your classmates as colleagues, you cannot help but learn from them; to my Lehman College officemates, Carl Brownson, Leonard Finkelman, and Chris Sula: thank you, our casual conversations about philosophy and our projects has been formative. I have benefitted from my service as an ethics fellow at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai under Professor Rhodes; discussing biomedical ethics with Nada Gligorov, a Graduate Center alumna, and my classmates, Steven Birnbaum, Katherine Mendis, and Carolyn Plunkett has challenged me to improve as a philosopher. Amanda Favia, Kyle Ferguson, and Lily Frank are also colleagues from Mount Sinai, and we have a shared an affinity for biomedical ethics and metaethics; conversations with them have shaped my thoughts and reinforced my confidence that the questions that interest in me are worth pursuing. viii I am unusually lucky to have a large group of friends from outside of graduate school that have been an escape from its pressures; I have unwound with them over coffee, wine, dinner, beer, the Mets, cocktails. I could not have done this without you, Sam Douglas, Terence Dwyer, Garth and Julia Graeper, Jen Hensley, Sang Lee, Brian Lennon, Vanessa Mae, Pat McDonough, Anne O’Neil-Henry, Mike Sclafani, and Vin Taddoni; next round is on me! I want to single out two friends. When I was working in finance, my friendship with Nathan Hensley was my connection to literature and philosophy, and our bar-closing conversations at the Kettle sustained my interest in them. We have continued this discussion from afar, and Nathan set a standard for being a graduate student I have tried to emulate. I want to acknowledge the influence of my late friend Steve King. When I started teaching at Lehman College, Steve carved me a lacquered sign for my office door: “Prof. Cummins, Philosophy.” When I protested that I wasn’t a professor, he simply said, “You will be, some day.” That sign hung over my desk at home, and on days when I wanted to abandon my dissertation and graduate school, it inspired me to fulfill Steve’s faith in me. Without my family’s support and love this dissertation would not have been possible. My brother-in-law, Ryan Casillo, and my parents-in-law, Harry and Kathleen Casillo, welcomed me, a philosophy graduate student, into their family with warmth and encouragement, and I can honestly say my in-laws are great. On each of his birthdays my brother Mark remains the best- read person his age I know, and when I have called him to talk about it he has never failed to impress me with his insights on my dissertation. The hardest part about graduate school is that Mark has been living in Los Angeles for most of it, but even so, I have known his support every day.
Recommended publications
  • 1 the Puzzle of Pure Moral Motivation Adam Lerner Some People Care

    1 the Puzzle of Pure Moral Motivation Adam Lerner Some People Care

    The Puzzle of Pure Moral Motivation Adam Lerner Some people care about doing the right thing as such. They want to do the right thing under that description. These people have what has come to be known as a de dicto desire to do what is right.1 Some people who have a desire to do what’s right as such desire to do what’s right only as a means. They want to do the right thing in order to avoid punishment, or as a way of doing what God or their mother would approve of, or because it would be a sign that they are predestined for salvation. But many care about doing the right thing for its own sake: because it’s the right thing. They have a final desire to do what’s right as such. This desire is an instance of what I will call pure moral motivation (PMM).2 Other instances of PMM include the desire to avoid doing what’s wrong as such, the desire to promote what’s good as such, and the desire to prevent what’s bad as such. Contemporary views in metaethics have been built to satisfy familiar desiderata: accommodating Moorean open questions, explaining the connection between moral judgment and moral motivation, accounting for the supervenience of the moral on the non-moral, and many others. In this paper, I introduce a new desideratum: vindicating the rationality of PMM. I argue that PMM is often rational, and that any adequate view must accommodate this fact. The puzzle of PMM is to explain how that can be done.
  • Moral Philosophy in Question

    Moral Philosophy in Question

    PHILOSOPHY AND WORLD PROBLEMS-Vol . I-Moral Philosophy In Question-John McMurtry MORAL PHILOSOPHY IN QUESTION John McMurtry Department of Philosophy, University of Guelph, Guelph NIG 2W1, Canada Keywords: addiction, aesthetics, analysis, axiology, deep ecology, desire theory, emotivism, evil, intrinsic value, idealism, life value, market theory, Marxian analysis, meta-ethics, moral blindness, moral philosophy, needs, objective values, social value system. Contents 3.1. The Underlying Problem of Moral Philosophy: Decoupling from the Life-Ground 3.2. The Conventional Tendency: Prescribing and Punishing Without Good Reason 3.3. The Professional Tendency: Moral Philosophy without Life Substance 3.4. Evaluating Social Value Systems: Off-Limits Even to Marxian Thought 3.5. What the Organism Wants: Desire Theory and its Fatal Flaw 3.6. The Paradox of Market Success: Magnitude of Desire Objects Multiplies Disvalues 3.7. Life-Value versus Desire-Value: The Turning Point of Value Judgment 3.8. Desire Theory Lacks Moral Resources to Rule out Destructive Addictions 3.9. The Logic of Moral Disaster: Freedom and Democracy as Multiplied Wants 3.10. Correct Love: From Subjective Desires to Transcendental Ideals 3.11. What We Don’t See: The Common Structure of Moral Blindness 3.12. Avoiding the Problem: Invaliding Moral Principles as Such 3.13. Ruling out Objective Values by Definition: The Life-Ground Counter Argument 3.14. Towards Value System Re-Grounding: The Needs Criterion of Value 3.15. Going Deeper: Understanding the Truth and the Limits of a Needs
  • 1 Moral Realism Geoffrey Sayre-Mccord UNC/Chapel Hill

    1 Moral Realism Geoffrey Sayre-Mccord UNC/Chapel Hill

    Moral Realism facts that peoples’ moral judgments are true or false, and that the facts being what they are (and so the judgments being true, when they are) is not merely a Geoffrey Sayre-McCord reflection of our thinking the facts are one way or another. That is, moral facts UNC/Chapel Hill are what they are even when we see them incorrectly or not at all. Introduction Moral realists thus all share the view that there are moral facts in light of People come, early and easily, to think in moral terms: to see many things which our moral judgments prove to be true or false. Yet they needn’t, and as good or bad, to view various options as right or wrong, to think of particular don’t, all share any particular view about what those facts are, and they might distributions as fair or unfair, to consider certain people virtuous and others well not be confident of any view at all. When it comes to moral matters, there vicious.[1] What they think, when they are thinking in these terms, often has a is no less disagreement among realists than among people at large and no large impact on their decisions and actions as well as on their responses to what incompatibility between being a realist and thinking oneself not in a good others do. People forego attractive possibilities when they think pursuing them position to know what the facts are. would be wrong, they push themselves to face death if they think it their duty, Furthermore, being a realist is compatible with holding a truly radical view they go to trouble to raise their kids to be virtuous, and they pursue things they of the moral facts.
  • Wittgenstein, Wright, Rorty and Minimalism Author(S): Simon Blackburn Source: Mind , Jan., 1998, Vol

    Wittgenstein, Wright, Rorty and Minimalism Author(S): Simon Blackburn Source: Mind , Jan., 1998, Vol

    Wittgenstein, Wright, Rorty and Minimalism Author(s): Simon Blackburn Source: Mind , Jan., 1998, Vol. 107, No. 425 (Jan., 1998), pp. 157-181 Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the Mind Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/2659811 JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Oxford University Press and are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Mind This content downloaded from 132.174.255.116 on Mon, 29 Jun 2020 15:38:47 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms SYMPOSIUM: REALISMAND TRUTH Wittgenstein, Wright, Rorty and Minimalism SIMON BLACKBURN 1. Introduction William James said that sometimes detailed philosophical argument is irrelevant. Once a current of thought is really under way, trying to oppose it with argument is like planting a stick in a river to try to alter its course: ''round your obstacle flows the water and 'gets there just the same"' (James 1909, p. 55). He thought pragmatism was such a river. There is a contemporary river that sometimes calls itself pragmatism, although other titles are probably better. At any rate it is the denial of differences, the cel- ebration of the seamless web of language, the soothing away of distinc- tions, whether of primary versus secondary, fact versus value, description versus expression, or of any other significant kind.
  • 607 RN Johnson and M. Smith (Eds.) the Range and Influence of Simon Blackburn's Work Is Reflected in The

    607 RN Johnson and M. Smith (Eds.) the Range and Influence of Simon Blackburn's Work Is Reflected in The

    Book Reviews 607 R.N. Johnson and M. Smith (eds.) Passions and Projections: Themes from the Philosophy of Simon Blackburn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), xx + 276 pages. isbn: 9780198723172. Hardback: $65.00. The range and influence of Simon Blackburn’s work is reflected in the the- matic variety of the contributions to this excellent volume edited by Robert N. Johnson and Michael Smith. The quality of the essays is consistently high, and together they provide a comprehensive, in-depth treatment of Black- burn’s many original and controversial ideas. The book is divided in two parts: Metaphysics and Epistemology (eight chapters), and Metaethics and Moral Psychology (six chapters). I will discuss one chapter below, but first let me of- fer a brief overview of the other essays. Louise Antony explores the relation between her position and Blackburn’s when it comes to giving an account of folk psychology, and suggests that their main disagreement concerns the need for a “language of thought” hypothesis. Helen Beebee compares Blackburn’s Humean account of causation, on which causal claims express inferential commitments, with a different projectivist view, proposed by Frank Ramsey and Huw Price, according to which causal discourse encodes the epistemic standpoint of a deliberating agent. Frank Jackson uses a possible worlds framework to give an account of the content of singular thought, a topic explored by Blackburn in Spreading the Word (Oxford University Press, 1984). Carrie Jenkins argues that quasi-realists about any domain of thought need to account for the possibility of knowledge in that domain, and that her own explanation-based epistemology might be useful in addressing this challenge.
  • Introduction to Philosophy Paul Muench University of Montana - Missoula, Paul.Muench@Umontana.Edu

    Introduction to Philosophy Paul Muench University of Montana - Missoula, [email protected]

    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Syllabi Course Syllabi Fall 9-1-2018 PHL 101Y.01: Introduction to Philosophy Paul Muench University of Montana - Missoula, [email protected] Let us know how access to this document benefits ouy . Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/syllabi Recommended Citation Muench, Paul, "PHL 101Y.01: Introduction to Philosophy" (2018). Syllabi. 8293. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/syllabi/8293 This Syllabus is brought to you for free and open access by the Course Syllabi at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Syllabi by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Philosophy 101Y/L University of Montana Prof. Paul Muench (pronounced “Minch”) Fall 2018 T.A.: Mason Voehl office: LA 151 office hours: Tue, 11-12; Wed, 1-3; Thu, 2-3; or by appointment mailbox: LA 152 email: office phone: (406) 243-2351 ___________________________________________________________________________________ Introduction to Philosophy Monday/Wednesday/Friday, 10-10:50 a.m., LA 11 Course Objectives This course will introduce you to some of the questions that philosophers have traditionally asked (questions about what we know and how we know it, about what is real, about what is valuable, and about how one should live) and to some of the answers they have proposed. It will also introduce you to some of the skills and methods used in philosophical inquiry, skills and methods that may be useful in other sorts of inquiries as well. These include the ability to analyze and criticize arguments; the ability to articulate one’s own views and to support them with reasoned arguments; and the ability to read a text carefully, sympathetically, and critically.
  • Quasi-Realism in Moral Philosophy an Interview with Simon Blackburn

    Quasi-Realism in Moral Philosophy an Interview with Simon Blackburn

    QUASI-REALISM IN MORAL PHILOSOPHY An interview with SIMON BLACKBURN By Darlei Dall´Agnol ethic@ - Would you, please, introduce yourself to the readers of ethic@ and tell us why you chose to study philosophy and what your main interests in it are? I chose to study philosophy because I was bored with the natural sciences of the school. I went up to Cambridge, people expected me to read natural sciences and so, physics, chemistry. But I decided that my friends in art subjects were having a much better time. They were sitting around discussing novels, while I was sitting in a laboratory learning about properties. I wanted to change to an art subject. The admission teacher said that since I’ve been in sciences, I wouldn’t like English because of all its topics, because it was not vigorous. Philosophy was the thing for me. I was really directed into it. But when I got up to Cambridge, I had a wonderful tutor, a man called Casemir Lewy. He was the editor of G. E. Moore. He made all these fascinating remarks about philosophy. So, I became a philosopher by accident. It was luck that I went to that college, that tutor, that direction. I could have been anything, but I would probably be a lawyer. ethic@ - You have been developing over the years a metaphysical program known as “quasi-realism”. How would you explain it in a few words to our readers? I think, the easiest way to understand my program is if we look back to people likeA.J.Ayer,Language, truth and logic, Charles Stevenson, Ethics and language,and the expressivist or emotivist traditions in ethics.
  • When the Kingdom of God Became the Kingdom of Ends: Altruism’S Development Into a Normative Ideal

    When the Kingdom of God Became the Kingdom of Ends: Altruism’S Development Into a Normative Ideal

    When the Kingdom of God Became the Kingdom of Ends: Altruism’s Development into a Normative Ideal A Senior Honor Thesis Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation with distinction in Political Science in the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences by Benjamin T. Jones The Ohio State University December 10, 2006 Project Advisors: John M. Parrish, Department of Political Science (Loyola Marymount University) Michael A. Neblo, Department of Political Science (The Ohio State University) Table of Contents Abstract ii Acknowledgements iii Introduction 1 The Paradox at the Heart of Altruism 4 Defining Altruism and Normativity 6 What Are We Looking For? 11 Roadmap of What’s to Come 14 Part I Towards a Problem: The Ancient Debate over Public Life 17 Eudaimonia and Ancient Ethics 18 Plato and Aristotle 24 Epicurus and the Stoics 40 A Solution from an Unlikely Source 47 Augustine’s Reconciliation of the Two Cities 55 Conclusion 63 Part II Self-Love’s Fall from Grace: How Normative Altruism Developed out of the Augustinian Tradition 65 Entangled in Self-love: Augustine’s Normative Argument 67 Augustine Goes Secular 75 Kant’s Problematic Solution 83 Reworking Kant—And Altruism 89 Conclusion 91 Part III The Problems with Normative Altruism 93 Two Conceptions of Altruism 93 Evidence for Altruism on a Descriptive Level 95 Motivational Barriers to Normative Altruism 113 Changing the Way We Talk About Altruism 121 Conclusion 126 Bibliography 131 i Abstract In contemporary moral philosophy, altruism holds a place of prominence. Although a complex idea, the term seeps into everyday discourse, by no means confined to the esoteric language of philosophers and psychologists.
  • The Concept of Moral Blindness

    The Concept of Moral Blindness

    Jacob Dahl RENDTORFF Roskilde University, Denmark EVIL IN ORGANIZATIONS AND CORPORATIONS: THE CONCEPT OF MORAL BLINDNESS Summary. This paper provides an analysis of evil in corporations and organizations by presenting the concept of moral blindness in relation to business organizations and public administration on the basis of the concept of administrative evil as it has been developed by Hannah Arendt and her followers. After a discussion of the definition of the concept from Hannah Arendt’s to Philip Zimbardo’s social psychology, the paper gives a general definition of the concept as the basis for application and case studies in public administration and private business corporations. Keywords: Evil, moral blindness, ethics, social roles, organizational bureaucracy ZŁO W ORGANIZACJACH I KORPORACJACH: KONCEPCJA ŚLEPOTY MORALNEJ Streszczenie. W artykule zaprezentowano analizę zła w korporacjach i organiza- cjach, przedstawiając koncepcję ślepoty moralnej w odniesieniu do organizacji biznesowych i administracji publicznej, na podstawie koncepcji zła administra- cyjnego, zgodnie z teorią Hannah Arendt i jej zwolenników. Po dyskusji definicji koncepcji od Hannah Arendt do psychologii społecznej Philipa Zimbardo, artykuł przedstawia ogólną definicję pojęcia ślepoty moralnej jako podstawy dla wniosków i analiz przypadków w administracji publicznej oraz w przedsiębiorstwach prywatnych. Słowa kluczowe: zło, ślepota moralna, etyka, role społeczne, biurokracja organizacyjna 96 J.D. Rendtorff 1. Introduction Evil or harm is arguably something that is often caused by the structure of organizations and institutions. We can refer to military institutions, public administrations and private corporations. One definition of administrative evil is the following: “So evil is really about the exercise of power to inflict harm, hurt, and destruction of others individually or collectively and it occurs on the institutional scale, to commit crimes against humanity” (Adams, Balafour, 2009: xv).
  • Escribir El Título Del Artículo

    Escribir El Título Del Artículo

    CON-TEXTOS KANTIANOS. International Journal of Philosophy N.o 11, Junio 2020, pp. 313-335 ISSN: 2386-7655 Doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3864972 Kantian Transcendental Pessimism and Jamesian Empirical Meliorism SAMI PIHLSTRÖM• University of Helsinki, Finland Abstract Kant’s philosophy was an important background for the pragmatist tradition, even though some of the major classical pragmatists, especially William James, were unwilling to acknowledge their debt to Kant. This essay considers the relation between Kant and James from the perspective of their conceptions of the human condition. In particular, I examine their shared pessimism, employing Vanden Auweele’s (2019) recent analysis of Kant’s pessimism and arguing that this is required by James’s meliorism (which is put forward as a middle-ground option between optimism and pessimism). A comparative inquiry into Kant’s and James’s views on the relation between ethics and religion is provided against this background of their shared philosophical anthropology. Keywords James, Kant, meliorism, pessimism, religion Abstrakti Kantin filosofia toimi tärkeänä vaikuttimena pragmatistiselle traditiolle, vaikka moni klassinen pragmatisti, William James erityisesti, ei ollut halukas tunnustamaan velkaansa Kantille. Artikkelissa tarkastellaan Kantin ja Jamesin ajattelun välistä suhdetta heidän ihmisyyttä koskevien • Sami Pihlström is (since 2014) Professor of Philosophy of Religion at the University of Helsinki, Finland. He is currently also the President of the Philosophical Society of Finland, as well as the Chair of the Research Council for Culture and Society at the Academy of Finland. He was previously (2009-2015) the Director of the Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies. He has since the 1990s published widely on pragmatism, realism, ethics, metaphysics, and philosophy of religion.
  • From Neural 'Is' to Moral 'Ought'

    From Neural 'Is' to Moral 'Ought'

    PERSPECTIVES 34. Churchland, P. S. Brain-wise: Studies in Neurophilosophy Acknowledgements usual Humean and Moorean reasons. (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2002). I thank P. M. Churchland and P. S. Churchland for their close 35. Churchland, P. M. Towards a cognitive neurobiology of reading of the manuscript and invaluable advice about its struc- Contemporary proponents of naturalized the moral virtues. Topoi 17, 83–96 (1998). ture and content. In addition, J. Greene’s sceptical remarks were ethics are aware of these objections, but in my 36. Wallis, J. D., Anderson, K. C. & Miller, E. K. Single extremely helpful. J. Moll also provided useful preprints of his neurons in prefrontal cortex encode abstract rules. team’s work in this area. opinion their theories do not adequately meet Nature 411, 953–956 (2001). them. Casebeer, for example, examines recent 37. Casebeer, W. D. & Churchland, P. S. The neural mechanisms of moral cognition: a multiple-aspect Online links work in neuroscientific moral psychology and approach to moral judgment and decision-making. Biol. finds that actual moral decision-making looks Philos. 18, 169–194 (2003). FURTHER INFORMATION 8 38. Moreno, J. D. Neuroethics: an agenda for neuroscience MIT Encyclopedia of Cognitive Sciences: more like what Aristotle recommends and and society. Nature Rev. Neurosci. 4, 149–153 (2003). http://cognet.mit.edu/MITECS/ less like what Kant9 and Mill10 recommend. 39. Cacioppo, J. T. et al. (eds) Foundations in Social Neuro- limbic system | moral psychology | social cognition | theory of science (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2002). mind From this he concludes that the available 40. Rachels, J.
  • Arisotelian and Confucian Cultures.Of Authority

    Arisotelian and Confucian Cultures.Of Authority

    \l \ (Oy, I UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII LIBRARY ARISOTELIAN AND CONFUCIAN CULTURES.OF AUTHORITY: JUSTIFYING MORAL NORMS BY APPEAL TO THE AUTHORITY OF EXEMPLARY PERSONS A THESIS SUBMmED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI'I IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN PHILOSOPHY AUGUST 2005 By Thorian Rane Harris Thesis Committee: Roger Ames, Chairperson Eliot Deutsch Thomas Jackson James Tiles Dedicated to my own exemplars: CLAUDIA CLOSE and JOCELYN HOY, jor modeling wonder and the teaching ojphilosophy; and CASSANDRA SWETT, jor modeling jriendship. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract '" '" v Chapter One: Norms and the Normative Question 1 Chapter Two: Aristotle, Confucius, and the Normative Question........................ 26 Section One: How Aristotle Answers the Normative Question............... 27 Section Two: How Confucius Answers the Normative Question 46 Section Three: Summary 69 Chapter Three: The Authority of Exemplary Persons 74 Section One: Exemplary Persons and Moral Blindness '" 74 Section Two: The Authority of Aristotelian and Confucian Exemplary Persons. .. 86 Literature Cited................................................................................. 102 iv Abstract This thesis attempts to argue that exemplary persons-teachers, parents, etc.-are norms in their own right. They do not merely exemplify virtues or demonstrate a life according to duty, nor are they simply the embodiment of a bunch of moral principles. Rather, they are a unique variety of norm altogether, and, as Aristotle and Confucius illustrate, can be a moral system's most basic norm-that is, the source ofjustification for all other norms, and the source of their own normative justification. To defend these claims I begin, in the first chapter, by discussing the meaning of the word "norm," and then turn to a consideration of the requirements for justifying moral norms.