Abstract
While many doubt that purely empirical claims can entail any moral claim, moral premises often appear to have empirical entailments. However, unless the moral premises are treated as stipulated assumptions, it seems like a serious mistake to infer empirical conclusions from moral premises that entail them. The puzzle is trying to plausibly explain why this is so. This chapter surveys and rejects some proposed solutions. Learning what we can from these failed solutions, a proposal is advanced. The chapter argues that every attempted moral science inference faces a dilemma. The moral premise(s), if true, will be contingent on some empirical fact or not. If not, the moral scientist must employ a false premise or rely on non-moral assumptions that already entail the conclusion. On the other horn, if the moral premises are independent of empirical facts, the premises will entail that some fact we know to be contingent is necessary.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
