DOCSLIB.ORG

Neo-Kantian Constructivism and Metaethics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Neo-Kantian Constructivism and Metaethics CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by University of Birmingham Research Archive, E-theses Repository NEO-KANTIAN CONSTRUCTIVISM AND METAETHICS by KIRK SURGENER A thesis submitted to the University Of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Philosophy College of Arts and Laws The University of Birmingham September 2011 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. I’d like to thank Alex Miller for giving me all the arguments in this; Joe Morrison and Darragh Byrne for printing it; Iain Law and Hallvard Lillehammer for examining it; and Naomi Maria Callas Thompson and Natalie Ashton for proof-reading it. I’d also like to thank all the people who have argued with me about the contents over the years, including but not limited to: Jussi Suikkanen, Ben Matheson, Ben (II) Bessey, Roxanne Harmony Green, Paul ‘The Broadbean’ Broadbent, Khai Wager, Callum Hood, Anna Brown, Damian ‘John’ Lewis, Helen Louise Crane, David Papineau, Philip Goff, ‘Nikk’ Effingham, Helen Beebee, Joss Walker, Max Kölbel, Sarah-Louise Johnson, Gis Infield-Solar, Mihaela Popa, Sarah Gancarczyk, John Gingell, Kate Major, Pegah Lashgarlou, Sorana ‘Piggy’ Vieru, Melanie Parker and Emma Cecilia Bullock. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER ONE: THE NORMATIVE QUESTION AND MORAL REALISM 5 1.1 The Normative Question 6 1.2 Substantive vs. Procedural Realism 13 1.3 Korsgaard Against Moral Realism 18 1.4 Korsgaard’s Rejection of Realism and the Distinction between Normative Ethics and Metaethics 23 CHAPTER TWO: INTERNALISM 37 2.1 The Normative Question: Moore, Mackie and Internalism 38 - 2.11 The Normative Question and Moore’s Open-Question Argument 39 - 2.12 The Normative Question and Mackie’s Argument from Queerness 42 - 2.13 Judgement Internalism 46 - 2.14 Internalism and the Open-Question Argument 49 - 2.15 Internalism and the Argument from Queerness 52 - 2.16 The Normative Question, Internalism, the Argument from Queerness and the Open-Question Argument 54 2.2 Internalism vs. Externalism 60 - 2.21 The Amoralist and the Inverted-Commas Response 62 - 2.22 Smith’s Response to the Amoralist Challenge 63 - 2.23 The Strength of the Amoralist Challenge 67 - 2.24 The Argument from Fetishism 71 - 2.25 van Roojen on Rational Amoralism 85 - 2.26 Rationalism, Internalism, Relativised Rightness and Frege’s Puzzle 87 - 2.27 Internalism and Rational Amoralism 96 CHAPTER THREE: THE GENERALISED ANTI-VOLUNTARISM ARGUMENT AND MORAL REALISMS 115 3.1 Voluntarism 119 3.2 Voluntarism Reconsidered 121 3.3 Externalist Moral Realism 130 - 3.31 Analytic Naturalism 131 - 3.32 Cornell Realism 147 - 3.33Moral Properties and Ontological Commitment 147 - 3.34 Program Explanation 153 - 3.35 Cornell Realism’s Semantic Programme 164 CHAPTER FOUR: THE NEO-KANTIAN AND EXPRESSIVISM 184 4.1 Expressivism 185 4.2 The Neo-Kantian Rejection of Expressivism 189 4.3 The Frege-Geach Problem 198 - 4.31 Higher-Order Attitudes 202 - 4.32 Inconsistency in Content 204 - 4.33 Hierarchy of Attitudes 206 - 4.34 Adding Structure to the Attitude 207 4.4 Hybrid-Expressivism 213 - 4.41 Ecumenical Cognitivism v Ecumenical Expressivism 214 - 4.42 Ecumenical Cognitivism and Judgement Internalism 219 - 4.43 Ecumenical Expressivism and the Frege-Geach Problem 222 - 4.44 Ecumenical Expressivism does not Solve the Frege-Geach Problem 226 - 4.45 Ecumenical Cognitivism does not Capture Judgement Internalism 235 - 4.46 Diagnosis 239 4.5 Realist-Expressivism and Neo-Expressivism 242 4.6 Hybrid-Expressivism and Neo-Kantianism 252 CHAPTER FIVE: NEO-KANTIAN CONSTRUCTIVISM 255 5.1 Neo-Kantian Constructivism and Judgement-Dependence 256 5.2 The Derivation of the Categorical Imperative 272 5.3 Constitutivism 282 5.4 The Inescapability of Agency 286 5.5 The Standard Objection to Kant 293 CONCLUSION 301 BIBLIOGRAPHY 304 INTRODUCTION Why should I be moral? This question gets to the heart of the normative problem, that is, the problem of grounding the normative force of moral obligations. People who take the normative problem seriously think that even once we have determined which actions are right or which objects are good there is still a question to be raised – why should we perform right actions? Why should we pursue good objects? In some cases what morality asks of us can be hard and the normative problem there seems particularly pressing. Christine Korsgaard has used the normative problem to launch arguments against two of the most popular metaethical accounts – moral realism and expressivism. She argues that reflection on the normative problem forces us to reject moral realism and expressivism, and adopt a position which „transcends‟ or „goes beyond‟ metaethics as it is traditionally conceived. We can call this positive view neo-Kantian constructivism. This thesis is a sustained examination of both of these parts of Korsgaard‟s work – the negative attacks on moral realism and expressivism; and her own neo-Kantian constructivism. I have two ambitions for it. First, I want to get clear formulations of and evaluate Korsgaard‟s arguments against her metaethical competitors and for her own position. Second, by engaging in the first task I hope to offer some results that will be independently interesting to people who are interested in metaethics. 1 Views similar to the ones Korsgaard defends have been advocated by other philosophers. In this thesis I have concentrated almost exclusively on Korsgaard‟s own view. This is in part because extracting a clear formulation of Korsgaard‟s arguments from her work is not always easy, and requires some amount of space. Also, I am more interested in how a view like neo-Kantian constructivism contrasts with completely different views in metaethics than in the details of different types of neo-Kantian constructivism (This is, of course, to some extent a false dichotomy. One way to explore how neo-Kantian constructivism hooks up with the rest of metaethics is to explore differences within the constructivist camp. I can only say this: it is only to some extent a false dichotomy – I have felt that the best way to pursue the issues I‟m interested in is to concentrate on a single view. I hope that the things that I say about metaethics are sufficiently independently interesting to compensate for this somewhat narrow focus). My conclusion will be that Korsgaard‟s position, although worth engaging with, ultimately fails. Her arguments against moral realism can be resisted if we formulate the right type of moral realism. However, her complaints about expressivism, when charitably interpreted, do cause problems for the expressivist. I give a new way of interpreting her own metaethical position, but argue that it ultimately fails in its ambitions. I begin in chapter one with an examination of attempts to dismiss the normative problem and the questions stemming from it as confused and thus safely ignored. I argue there that such attempts rely upon an overly austere conception of the tasks of metaethics, and a questionable thesis about the relationship of metaethics to normative ethics. I also begin to outline Korsgaard‟s argument against realism. 2 In chapter 2 I argue that we can get a clearer grip on Korsgaard‟s argument against realism if we construe it as a problem to do with the alleged motivational import of moral judgements. Variations of the claim that moral judgements are inherently motivating are often made (a claim we can call „internalism‟), and this claim causes problems for realism (against suitable background assumptions). Seeing Korsgaard‟s argument this way allows us to explain the affinities she claims her argument has with G.E. Moore‟s open question argument and J.L. Mackie‟s argument from queerness. I argue that the lesson we should draw is that internalism is a troubling claim for moral realism, and that we should investigate whether there are compelling reasons to accept it. I first argue that Michael Smith‟s two-pronged manoeuvre in favour of internalism fails, before going on to consider Mark van Roojen‟s more recent case for internalism – again arguing that it fails. What moral realists need to do, I claim, is establish a viable form of externalist realism, and hence they will be able to dodge Korsgaard‟s argument when it is construed in this manner. I then go on (chapter 3) to offer a second interpretation of Korsgaard‟s argument where she ends up offering what we can call, following Mark Schroeder, a generalised anti-voluntarist argument. The upshot of this argument is that moral realism, to avoid the argument, should be reductionist. I then go on to consider two versions of moral realism: one externalist and non-reductionist (Cornell realism); and the other externalist and reductionist (Stephen Finlay‟s analytic reductivism). If either of these views is viable then moral realism is able to dodge one or both of the construals of Korsgaard‟s argument. I argue that Finlay‟s position does well along a number of dimensions, but that it invokes a methodology that is not licensed by the account of analyticity he adverts to. Cornell realism can resist two of the major lines of attack typically launched against its semantic programme and its ontological claims. Both views, I think, offer us ways to circumvent Korsgaard‟s arguments.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Saving Moral Realism: Against Blackburn's Projectivism
    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.
    [Show full text]
  • Cognitivism, Expressivism and Hybrid Expressivism How to Solve the Moral Problem
    Cognitivism, Expressivism and Hybrid Expressivism How to Solve The Moral Problem Marcus Bøhn Thesis presented for the degree of MASTER OF PHILOSOPHY Supervised by Associate Professor Sebastian Watzl Department of Philosophy, Classics, History of Art and Ideas Faculty of Humanities UNIVERSITY OF OSLO Spring 2016 2 Cognitivism, Expressivism and Hybrid Expressivism How to Solve The Moral Problem 3 4 Cognitivism, Expressivism and Hybrid Expressivism How to Solve The Moral Problem Marcus Bøhn UNIVERSITY OF OSLO 5 6 Abstract This thesis investigates whether an Expressivism or Hybrid Expressivism account is better suited to solve “The moral problem” than cognitivist theories. “The moral problem” is the unified account of 1) the practicality requirement – a satisfactory account of moral psychology and motivation and 2) a satisfactory metaphysical and epistemological account of the objective features of morality, the objectivity requirement. I will argue that Expressivism accommodates motivational issues and the seemingly sentimental base of moral judgements better than cognitivism, and also that the theory of moral evolution seem to favour anti- realism and noncognitivism. I argue that hybrid versions of expressivism may be seen as advancing the quasi-realist project by allowing moral sentences to express belief-like states of mind in addition to desire-like states of mind, in which the belief component have propositional contents. There still remain serious unresolved issues for any expressivist – the Frege-Geach problem in particular. 7 8 Acknowledgements First I would like to thank my superviser, Sebastian Watzl, who has offered continuous support, insightful comments, objections and suggestions. I would also like to thank the other members of our informal metaethics reading group – Conrad Bakka, Ainar Petersen Miyata, Martin Ravneberg, Øyvind Sætre Strøm, Sebastian Watzl and, sometimes, Caj Strandberg – for countless hours of metaethical discussion.
    [Show full text]
  • The Conditions of Moral Realism
    The Conditions of Moral Realism Christian Miller Wake Forest University [email protected] The Journal of Philosophical Research 34 (2009): 123-155. With the recent development of sophisticated expressivist, quasi-realist, and minimalist positions in contemporary meta-ethics, it has become increasingly difficult to isolate what it is that is meant to be at issue in discussions of moral realism. Quasi-realists, for example, can claim that moral facts exist and moral statements are true. Indeed, if Blackburn is to be believed, they can even help themselves to the language of mind-independence and objectivity.1 Thus it has seemed to some that there is nothing at stake between the quasi-realist and the traditional moral realist, and the same goes for realism and several other leading meta-ethical positions. In this paper, I hope to provide an account of the conditions of moral realism whereby there are still significant metaphysical commitments made by the realist which set the view apart as a distinct position in the contemporary meta-ethical landscape. In order to do so, I will be appealing to a general account of what it is for realism to be true in any domain of experience, whether it be realism about universals, realism about unobservable scientific entities, realism about artifacts, and so forth. I have developed and motivated such an account elsewhere, and will not take the time here to revisit all that went into its formulation.2 Rather, my goal in this paper is to take that account of what might be called general realism, and apply it to discussions of moral realism.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Rights, Moral Obligations, and Divine Commands
    Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers Volume 23 Issue 2 Article 1 4-1-2006 Human Rights, Moral Obligations, and Divine Commands Ton van den Beld Follow this and additional works at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy Recommended Citation van den Beld, Ton (2006) "Human Rights, Moral Obligations, and Divine Commands," Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers: Vol. 23 : Iss. 2 , Article 1. DOI: 10.5840/faithphil200623216 Available at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy/vol23/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers by an authorized editor of ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. HUMAN RIGHTS, MORAL OBLIGATIONS, AND DIVINE COMMANDS Ton van den Beld The principal question which I set out to answer is whether, since moral rights and obligations stand or fall together, the latter can stand, that is, whether they are real and inescapable. The argument initially unfolds as a rmming comment on the development of Bernard Williams's moral think­ ing. The reason is that his thought nicely exemplifies an interesting connec­ tion between a particular religious and moral scepticism. A first conclusion is that a morality of real, inescapable and -for the agent-sometimes costly obligations and their correlative rights, while being at home in a theistic metaphysic, fits in badly with metaphysical, atheistic naturalism. The second conclusion is that Christine Korsgaard's impressive ethical project, which is neutral towards theism and atheism, fails to give a satisfying account of such obligations.
    [Show full text]
  • Robustness in Moral Reality
    Robustness in Moral Reality Norms, Necessity, and Robust Realism Stephen Ingram Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Philosophy) March 2016 Department of Philosophy University of Sheffield Abstract This thesis examines the metaethical theory known as ‘Robust Realism.’ According to defenders of this view, there exist irreducible, non-natural, mind-independent, and categorically authoritative moral properties. The central aim of this thesis is to identify the best way of understanding and motivating these claims. In other words, I intend to develop a compelling metaphysics for Robust Realism. I don’t plan to show that Robust Realism is true, but I do plan to identify the best formulation of it. I will thereby put us in a better place to assess its viability against rival views of moral reality. The robustly realistic theory that I will develop is built around the idea that there are necessary moral norms. In other words, norms that have authority in every possible world. I show how positing such norms enables the Robust Realist to defuse two influential ways of objecting to their claim that moral properties are irreducible. I provide an account of necessary moral norms as fundamental entities with a modal jurisdiction that, unlike the many non-fundamental moral norms, is not limited by any contingent presupposition. I show that the mind-independence of moral properties and norms takes us some way toward the elimination of those contingent limiting factors. I use this account to clarify the categoricity of moral direction, and in turn show how the categoricity of moral direction can be used in defence of an interestingly non-naturalist view of moral reality.
    [Show full text]
  • Naturalism in Metaethics
    Naturalism in Metaethics Jussi Suikkanen Final Author Copy: Published in Blackwell Companion to Naturalism, Kelly James Clark (ed.), Wiley- Blackwell, 2016. This chapter offers an introduction to naturalist views in contemporary metaethics.1 Such views attempt to find a place for normative properties (such as goodness and rightness) in the concrete physical world as it is understood by both science and common sense. The chapter begins by introducing simple naturalist conceptual analyses of normative terms. It then explains how these analyses were rejected in the beginning of the 20th century due to G.E. Moore’s influential open question argument. After this, the chapter considers what good general reasons there are for defending naturalism in metaethics. The bulk of the chapter will then survey new semantic and metaphysical forms of naturalism, which in different ways attempt to address Moore’s objection. These more recent versions of naturalism – using new resources from philosophy of language, philosophy of mind, metaphysics, philosophy of science, and epistemology – attempt to explain why the open question argument fails. Naturalist Conceptual Analyses of Normative Terms The paradigmatic method of philosophical investigation has traditionally been conceptual analysis.2 When philosophers use this method, they are attempting to capture in simpler terms what a person means when she uses a more complicated term. It is natural to think that what a 1 Metaethics is the study of the nature of normative judgments and normative properties and the meaning of normative language. This is to be contrasted with normative ethics, which studies questions such as which actions are right and wrong.
    [Show full text]
  • Methodological Naturalism in Metaethics Daniel Nolan
    Methodological Naturalism in Metaethics Daniel Nolan Penultimate Draft. The final version is in McPherson, T. and Plunkett, D. (eds) 2017. The Routledge Handbook of Metaethics. Routledge, New York, pp 659-673. Please cite the published version. 1. Introduction The philosophical movement of naturalism is normally divided into two strands. One is a methodological one: roughly, that philosophy (or some area of philosophy) should proceed using the methods of the sciences, particularly the natural sciences. The other is a metaphysical one: roughly, that the theory of the world that results from our philosophical inquiries should match, or at least not conflict with, what the sciences tell us there is. This chapter focuses on the first strand of naturalism. What does investigation of metaethics and ethics look like if we take a naturalist approach? The focus of this chapter will be on methodological naturalism as an approach to metaethics. Part of metaethics, however, involves questions about the epistemology and method of ethics. These include questions about how we know what is morally right or wrong, good or bad, virtuous or vicious, etc., and what method we should use for determining answers to tricky questions about what we should do, how we should be, and what sort of world to aim for (morally speaking). Methodological naturalism about metaethical questions would typically go with methodological naturalism in the epistemology and method of ethics itself, though as we will see below one important strand of contemporary metaethical thinking treats metaethics as a naturalistic enquiry but does not treat ethics in this way. A wide range of methodological approaches are claimed to be naturalistic by their proponents.
    [Show full text]
  • Abstract This Book Explores Arguments for and Against Moral
    Abstract This book explores arguments for and against moral realism and mathematical realism, how they interact, and what they can tell us about areas of philosophical interest more generally. It argues that our mathematical beliefs have no better claim to being self-evident or provable than our moral beliefs. Nor do our mathematical beliefs have better claim to being empirically justified. It is also incorrect that reflection on the “genealogy” of our moral beliefs establishes a lack of parity between the cases. In general, if one is a moral anti-realist on the basis of epistemological considerations, then one ought to be a mathematical anti-realist too. And yet, the book argues that moral realism and mathematical realism do not stand or fall together – and for a surprising reason. Moral questions, insofar as they are practical, are objective in a sense in which mathematical questions are not, and the sense in which they are objective can only be explained by assuming practical anti-realism. It follows that the concepts of realism and objectivity, which have been widely identified, are actually in tension. The author concludes that the objective questions in the neighborhood of questions of logic, modality, grounding, nature, and more are practical questions as well. Practical philosophy should, therefore, take center stage. Keywords morality, mathematics, realism, anti-realism, objectivity, practical, self-evidence, proof, genealogy, Benacerraf, logic, Indispensability Argument, Open Question Argument, <p. i: half-title page, recto> Morality and Mathematics <p. ii: half-title page, verso: blank> <p. iii: title page, recto> Morality and Mathematics JUSTIN CLARKE-DOANE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS <p.
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliography
    Bibliography The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is to be found at http://plato.stanford.edu All entries are referenced here as 2012. See specifi c details on the site for date of fi rst posting and any revisions. I have listed all relevant entries in this bibliography; some listed here do not appear in any of the ‘Further Reading’ entries. Entries with a * are also in Fisher and Kirchin eds. (2006), in part or whole. Entries with a + are also in Shafer-Landau and Cuneo eds. (2006), in part or whole. Altham, J. E. J. (1986). ‘The Legacy of Emotivism’, in Fact, Science and Morality: Essays on A. J. Ayer’s Language, Truth, and Logic, 275–288, eds. G. Macdonald and C. Wright, Oxford: Blackwell. Ayer, A. J. (1946). Language, Truth and Logic, London: Gollancz, 2nd ed.+ Beaney, M. (2012). ‘Analysis’, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. E. Zalta. Blackburn, S. (1981). ‘Rule-Following and Moral Realism’, in Wittgenstein: To Follow a Rule, 163–187, eds. S. Holtzman and C. Leich, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.* Blackburn, S. (1984). Spreading the Word, Oxford: Oxford University Press.* Blackburn, S. (1988). ‘Attitudes and Contents’, Ethics 98, 501–517.* + Blackburn, S. (1993a). Essays in Quasi-Realism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.+ Blackburn, S. (1993b). ‘Realism: Quasi or Queasy?’, in Reality, Representation and Projection, 365–383, ed. J. Haldane and C. Wright, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Blackburn, S. (1998). Ruling Passions, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Blackburn, S. (2005). Truth, London: Penguin. Boyd, R. (1988). ‘How to be a Moral Realist’, in Essays on Moral Realism, 181–228, ed.
    [Show full text]
  • I. Modern Metaethics Selective Bibliography
    Максимов Л.В. Сектор этики ИФ РАН (август 2015) I. СОВРЕМЕННАЯ МЕТАЭТИКА (ИЗБРАННАЯ БИБЛИОГРАФИЯ) В библиографический список включены аннотированные англоязычные труды, изданные в последние годы (2000 – 2015). I. MODERN METAETHICS_SELECTIVE BIBLIOGRAPHY The bibliography is arranged chronologically (in descending order). 1. Silk, A. (2015) ―Nietzschean Constructivism: Ethics and Metaethics for All and None,” in Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy. Vol. 58, Issue 3, pp. 244-280. Abstract This paper develops an interpretation of Nietzsche‘s ethics and metaethics that reconciles his apparent antirealism with his engagement in normative discourse. Interpreting Nietzsche as a metaethical constructivist—as holding, to a first approximation, that evaluative facts are grounded purely in facts about the evaluative attitudes of the creatures to whom they apply—reconciles his vehement declarations that nothing is valuable in itself with his passionate expressions of a particular evaluative perspective and injunctions for the free spirits to create new values. Drawing on Nietzsche‘s broader epistemological and psychological views, I develop a distinctive, and genuinely Nietzschean, version of constructivism. On this account, evaluative properties are grounded in affective valuations of the new philosophers. The proposed interpretation synthesizes a variety of disparate features of Nietzsche‘s writings and improves on existing interpretations in the literature. The resulting version of constructivism is also worthy of attention in contemporary theorizing. The fruits of understanding the distinctive form of Nietzsche‘s ethical theory are an illuminating example of how metanormative inquiry can undergird normative evaluation in practice. Subjects: ethics -- research; metaethics; research; constructivism (psychology); philosophers; Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm 2. Forcehimes, A. T. (2015) “On L.
    [Show full text]
  • Cornell Realism, Explanation, and Natural Properties∗
    Forthcoming in the European Journal of Philosophy Cornell Realism, Explanation, and Natural Properties∗ Luis R.G. Oliveira & Timothy Perrine Abstract: The claim that ordinary ethical discourse is typically true and that ethical facts are typically knowable (ethical conservativism) seems in tension with the claim that ordinary ethical discourse is about features of reality friendly to a scientific worldview (ethical naturalism). Cornell Realism attempts to dispel this tension by claiming that ordinary ethical discourse is, in fact, discourse about the same kinds of things that scientific discourse is about: natural properties. We offer two novel arguments in reply. First, we identify a key assumption that we find unlikely to be true. Second, we identify two features of typical natural properties that ethical properties lack. We conclude that Cornell Realism falls short of dispelling the tension between ethical conservativism and ethical naturalism. Many of us desire a meta-ethical position that allows us to take ordinary ethical discourse seriously. It seems to those of us, that is, that much of what we say about right and wrong or good and bad, for example, is true. Even more, it seems to those of us that we typically know many of these truths. What many of us desire, in other words, is a meta-ethical position that sees our ordinary ethical discourse as tracking important features of an accessible reality, as opposed to seeing it as some kind of mistake, mystery, or fiction (however useful). As we will put it, this is a desire for conservativism about ethical discourse, or ethical conservativism for short.
    [Show full text]