Contemporary Metaethics Research Articles

Experience and naturalism

AbstractMuch of contemporary metaethics revolves around the issue of “naturalism.” However, there is little agreement on what “naturalism” is or why it should be of significance. In this paper, I aim to rectify this situation by providing a set of necessary conditions on what positions ought to count as “naturalistic.” A metaethical view should count as an instance of naturalism only if it claims that there can be evidence for normative claims that is both public and spatiotemporal. I argue that, unlike other characterizations of “naturalism,” this view shows a clear difference between many metaethical positions and the sciences. The view thereby renders debates about naturalism philosophically significant: the division between naturalists and non‐naturalists is that between philosophers who hold that ethics is relevantly similar to the sciences and those who deny this.

The presumption of realism

AbstractWithin contemporary metaethics, it is widely held that there is a “presumption of realism” in moral thought and discourse. Anti-realist views, like error theory and expressivism, may have certain theoretical considerations speaking in their favor, but our pretheoretical stance with respect to morality clearly favors objectivist metaethical views. This article argues against this widely held view. It does so by drawing from recent discussions about so-called “subjective attitude verbs” in linguistics and philosophy of language. Unlike pretheoretically objective predicates (e.g., “is made of wood”, “is 185 cm tall”), moral predicates embed felicitously under subjective attitude verbs like the English “find”. Moreover, it is argued that the widespread notion that moral discourse bears all the marks of fact-stating discourse is rooted in a blinkered focus on examples from English. Cross-linguistic considerations suggest that subjective attitude verbs are actually the default terms by which we ascribe moral views to people. Impressions to the contrary in English have to do with some unfortunate quirks of the term “think”.

Robust Normativity and the Argument from Weirdness

Abstract J. L. Mackie argued that moral thought and discourse involve commitment to an especially robust kind of normativity, which is too weird to exist. Thus, he concluded that moral thought and discourse involve systematic error. Much has been said about this argument in the last four decades or so. Nevertheless, at least one version of Mackie’s argument, specifically the one focusing on the intrinsic weirdness of the relevant kind of normativity, has not been fully unpacked. Thus, more needs to be said about the issue of how to interpret Mackie’s argument. Moreover, I argue that by looking closely at Mackie’s discussion, we can extract two distinct versions of the argument which together present a tougher, and also more precise, challenge for moral realism than extant versions. In this paper I thus revisit Mackie’s discussion with an eye to making progress on an important issue in contemporary metaethics.

An Interpretation of the Deep Disagreement between Plato and Protagoras from the Perspective of Contemporary Meta-Ethics and Political Epistemology

Since the early 20th century, two new disciplines emerged in the tradition of analytic philosophy: meta-ethics and political epistemology. Nevertheless, debates on such questions go back to the ancient Greeks and, in particular, to the debates between Plato and Protagoras. This article elucidates the controversy between Plato and the influential sophist Protagoras from the perspective of contemporary meta-ethics and political epistemology. It argues that the main motivation of Plato’s philosophical endeavors is to overcome Protagoras’s skeptical claims that no moral facts and no moral knowledge applicable to political issues exist. The paper defends the thesis that there exists a deep disagreement between Protagoras and Plato on the existence of moral facts and moral knowledge. A deep disagreement is a disagreement that cannot be resolved through the use of reasons and arguments. Applying the foundationalist approach Robert J. Fogelin proposes in his seminal paper “The Logic of Deep Disagreements”, this article argues that the deep disagreement between Protagoras and Plato exists because their political thought is based on “underlying principles” that clash. While Plato’s political philosophy rests on his religious and theological convictions, the political thought of Protagoras is based on his skepticism, relativism, and agnosticism.

Controversial views and moral realism

It is argued that the emergence of controversial views in discussions of theoretical medicine and bioethics is best explained by the assumption of moral realism within those discursive practices. Neither of the main alternatives of realism in contemporary meta-ethics — moral expressivism and anti-realism — can account for the rise of controversies in the bioethical debate. This argument draws from the contemporary expressivist or anti-representationalist pragmatism as advanced by Richard Rorty and Huw Price, as well as the pragmatist scientific realism and fallibilism of the founder of pragmatism, Charles S. Peirce. In accordance with the fallibilist view, it is proposed that presenting controversial positions may serve epistemic purposes within bioethical debates, providing opportunities for inquiry by pointing towards problems to be solved and arguments and evidence for and against to be put forward.

Akrasia and moral motivation

AbstractThe motivation problem as normally conceived is a problem about explaining the special connection between moral judgment and motivation. This understanding of the problem has structured a great deal of thinking in contemporary metaethics and moral psychology. For example, claims about the special motivational import of moral judgment have figured as central premises in the most influential arguments for noncognitivism. But debates about moral motivation have eventuated in seemingly intractable disputes between internalists and externalists about, for example, the possibility of genuine amoralism. In this paper, I motivate a new way forward, which draws underappreciated insights from philosophical thinking about the irrationality of akrasia. One central lesson is that discussions of the motivation problem should move away from the focus on moral judgment specifically. A more controversial and radical proposal is that the traditional motivation problem can be dissolved. Contra externalists, there is one fundamental and necessary connection between judgment and motivation. But this connection—a connection between all things considered normative judgment and motivation in rational agents—in fact requires no special explanation at all.

Evaluative Discourse and Affective States of Mind

AbstractIt is widely held within contemporary metaethics that there is a lack of linguistic support for evaluative expressivism. On the contrary, it seems that the predictions that expressivists make about evaluative discourse are not borne out. An instance of this is the so-called problem of missing Moorean infelicity. Expressivists maintain that evaluative statements express non-cognitive states of mind in a similar manner to how ordinary descriptive language expresses beliefs. Conjoining an ordinary assertion that p with the denial of being in the corresponding belief state famously gives rise to Moorean infelicity:(i) ?? It’s raining but I don’t believe that it’s raining.If expressivists are right, then conjoining evaluative statements with the denial of being in the relevant non-cognitive state of mind should give rise to similar infelicity. However, as several theorists have pointed out, this does not seem to be the case. Statements like the following are not infelicitous:(ii) Murder is wrong but I don’t disapprove of it.In this paper, I argue that evaluative statements express the kind of states that are attributed by ‘find’-constructions in English and that these states are non-cognitive in nature. This addresses the problem of missing Moorean infelicity and, more generally, goes to show that there are linguistic facts which support expressivism about evaluative discourse.

Wholes and values

Giovanni Piana’s ‘phenomenological structuralism’ is an original, deeply insightful way of making the most of phenomenological research by exploiting and developing the conceptual resources of Husserl’s theory of wholes and parts. Drawing on both Piana’s pioneering application of Gestalt theory to phenomenological aesthetics and on his life-long familiarity with the theory of structured wholes, this paper shows how phenomenological structuralism can be very fruitfully applied to general axiology and proves decisive in accounting for concrete value experience, which is not adequately conceptualized in contemporary metaethics. Far beyond Piana’s own concerns, his structuralism can provide clearer foundations for classic, Schelerian phenomenological axiology.

Bix on the normativity of law

Bix would like to see legal theorists abandon the currently common view that law makes moral claims. He favours instead, an account of law’s normativity along the lines of Hart’s account (and relatedly, Kelsen’s). I argue that in order to make a persuasive case, Bix would need to offer more to those who find a view like Hart’s wanting. It is not clear that Hart’s approach has the advantages Bix claims for it, and in any case, Bix does not acknowledge or address the view’s critical defects. For these reasons, I conclude, Bix hasn’t really shown how “a more deflationary /…/ understanding of the nature of law is tenable,” or how it “may in fact work better” than morality-focused understandings of law’s nature—at least not if we want to understand the normativity of law. I suggest that efforts to understand law’s normativity would benefit from taking into consideration discussions of normativity in contemporary metaethics.

Reid on Moral Sentimentalism

In the Essays on the Active Powers of Man V. 7, Thomas Reid seeks to show “[t]hat moral approbation implies a real judgment,” contrasting this thesis with the view that moral approbation is no more than a feeling. Unfortunately, his criticism of moral sentimentalism systematically conflates two different metaethical views: non-cognitivism about moral thought and subjectivism about moral properties. However, if we properly disentangle the various parts of Reid’s discussion, we can isolate pertinent arguments against each of these views. Some of these arguments, such as the argument from disagreement and the argument from implausible counterfactuals against subjectivism, or the transparency argument against non-cognitivism, still have important roles to play in contemporary metaethics.

EXPRESIVISMO METAJURÍDICO, ENUNCIADOS INTERNOS Y ACEPTACIÓN PLURAL: UNA EXPLORACIÓN CRÍTICA

Uno de los temas de más profundo debate en la filosofía del derecho de los últimos años ha sido el de las maneras en que dar cuenta del fenómeno del desacuerdo entre operadores jurídicos y entre juristas a la hora de desentrañar el contenido del derecho y, por ende, de dar con la respuesta jurídica para controversias particulares. A partir del trabajo de Ronald Dworkin, el tema se ha convertido en un instrumento de intenso análisis crítico del positivismo jurídico y consecuentemente ha generado diversos enfoques que intentan dar cuenta del fenómeno de manera armónica con las tesis positivistas centrales. Uno de estos enfoques, en particular, intenta afrontar este desafío ligando al positivismo con un análisis expresivista del discurso jurídico de primer orden; análisis análogo al que importantes autores abocados a la metaética contemporánea han propuesto para el discurso moral. En el presente trabajo presento los lineamientos centrales de este enfoque iusfilosófico, indagando tanto en algunas de sus virtudes como en algunas de sus mayores dificultades.

A Phenomenological Approach with Ontological Implications? Charles Taylor and Maurice Mandelbaum on Explanation in Ethics

This paper critically discusses Charles Taylor’s ethical views in his little known paper “Ethics and Ontology” (J Philos 100 (6): 305–320, 2003) by confronting it with the moral phenomenology of Maurice Mandelbaum, as laid out in his (largely neglected) The Phenomenology of Moral Experience (1955). The aim of the paper is to explore the significance of Taylor’s views for the dispute between naturalists, non-naturalists, and quietists in contemporary metaethics. It is divided in six sections. In the first section, I examine Taylor’s critique of naturalism. I continue to discuss his moral phenomenology in more detail in the second and third sections, arguing that Taylor’s move from phenomenology to ontology is problematic. In the fourth section, I evaluate Taylor’s strategy by comparing it with Mandelbaum’s understanding of moral phenomenology, while also extending this comparison to the issue of how to locate the source of moral experience in the fifth section. Based on these discussions, I finally conclude in the sixth section that Taylor’s hermeneutical position, although ontologically incomplete and underdemonstrated, draws attention to a question to which current moral theory does not adequately respond.

Proper‐Function Moral Realism

AbstractA common line of thought in contemporary metaethics is that certain facts about the evolutionary history of humans make moral realism implausible. Two of the most developed evolutionary cases against realism are found in the works of Richard Joyce and Sharon Street. In what follows, I argue that a form of moral realism that I call proper‐function moral realism can meet Joyce and Street's challenges. I begin by sketching the basics of proper‐function moral realism. I then present what I take to be the essence of Street's and Joyce's objections, and I show how proper‐function realism answers them.

Hume: sus aportes al análisis del lenguaje moral

RESUMEN El objetivo de este trabajo es reconstruir los diferentes aportes realizados por David Hume al análisis del lenguaje moral y de la argumentación práctica, es decir, a las cuestiones que hoy se agrupan bajo de el nombre de Metaética. Muchas de sus puntualizaciones y argumentos son conocidos y tuvieron una notable influencia en la metaética contemporánea, pero otros pasajes de su obra no tuvieron tal atención, y es mi interés resaltarlos y destacar su importancia. En este artículo me ocuparé de unos y de otros. PALABRAS CLAVEHUME–METAÉTICA–SUBJETIVISMO AXIOLÓGICO–GUILLOTINA DE HUME– LENGUAJE MORALABSTRACT The objective of this study is to reconstruct the different contributions made by David Hume to the analysis of moral language and practical argumentation, issues which today are grouped as Metaethics. Many of his points and arguments are known and had a remarkable influence on the contemporary metaethics, but other passages of his work had no such attention, and is my interest, highlight them and its importance. In this article I will deal with ones and othersKEY WORDSHUME METAETHICS–AXIOLOGICAL SUBJETIVISM–HUME´S GUILLOTINE–MORAL LENGUAGE

Bentham and metaethics

?Project Bentham? which has been started in 1968 is still in progress. This effort of editing Bentham?s voluminous work is naturally accompanied with ?new readings? of Bentham?s old text. Some of those editorial readings shade some light on some of Bentham?s almost forgotten endeavors in the areas of philosophy of language and logic. In this paper author analyze some Bentham?s ideas significant for the contemporary metaethics: 1) facts/values distinction; 2) analytical approach to the language in general; and 3) the theory of fictitious entities. The author concludes that some of Bentham?s analysis and proposals are similar to Charles Stevenson?s metaethical ?emotivism?.

NEW DIRECTIONS IN LEGAL EXPRESSIVISM

ABSTRACTNumerous legal scholars have adopted the view that H. L. A. Hart offered an expressivist (or at least proto-expressivist) account of legal discourse. But philosophers of law have given comparatively little attention to the prospect of developing newer forms of legal expressivism informed by contemporary metaethics. One notable exception is Kevin Toh, who has recently addressed this constructive project. This article critically evaluates Toh's contributions to the project of legal expressivism. Despite the value of Toh's work in reviving legal expressivism as an explanatory strategy in jurisprudence, neither he nor anyone else has paid sufficient attention to the most important question now facing legal expressivists. I call this the “question of content”: to wit, what distinguishes the mental states expressed by legal statements from the mental states expressed in other forms of normative discourse? I argue that theorists interested in legal expressivism must prioritize this question.

A Wittgensteinian Form of Moral Expressivism

Abstract The notion of “attitude” is central to the reception of Wittgenstein in moral philosophy, in at least two different contexts: firstly, in connection with early Wittgenstein it has become standard to speak of ethics as an “attitude towards the world as a whole”; and secondly, and in connection with the later Wittgenstein, the notion of the “attitude towards a soul” - in contrast with the alleged opinion that someone has a soul - has been used to elucidate a sense of the moral significance of others, particularly in the writings of Peter Winch and Cora Diamond. Interestingly, within contemporary metaethics, the position that our moral judgments are expressions of attitude is labelled “moral expressivism”. In this paper I focus on Simon Blackburn’s version of moral expressivism. I argue that Blackburn’s position is motivated by the same concerns Wittgenstein expressed in his Lecture on Ethics. However, while Blackburn’s notion of “attitude” is ultimately an emotivist notion, denoting a binary affective response to the facts, the notion of “attitude” used in Wittgensteinian contexts is much subtler; while it often involves an emotional response, an attitude is primarily a way of conceiving the facts and in the context of his later work it is more firmly grounded in practices. I suggest finally that if we modify moral expressivism by adopting the Wittgensteinian notion of attitude, we are able to more capably answer some of the objections to standard moral expressivism and generate a more sophisticated and plausible view.

Realism and Constructivism in Kantian Metaethics (1): Realism and Constructivism in a Kantian Context

AbstractMetaethical constructivism is one of the main movements within contemporary metaethics – especially among those with Kantian inclinations. But both the philosophical coherence and the Kantian pedigree of constructivism are hotly contested. In the first half of this article, I first explore the sense in which Kant's own views might be described as constructivist and then use the resulting understanding as a guide to how we might think about Kantian constructivism today. Along the way, I hope to suggest that a fairly diverse range of views within contemporary metaethics – including some without any explicit allegiance to Kant – may be thought of as pursuing a version of the resulting strategy.

Conservatism in Metaethics: A Case Study

AbstractMetaethicists typically develop and assess their theories—in part—on the basis of the consistency of those theories with “ordinary” first‐order normative judgment. They are, in this sense, “methodologically conservative.” This article shows that this methodologically conservative approach obstructs a proper assessment of the debate between internalists and externalists. Specifically, it obstructs one of the most promising readings of internalism. This is a reading—owed to Bernard Williams—in which internalism is part of a practically and politically motivated revision of the assessment of action. The article uses this case study to highlight the role of methodological conservatism in contemporary metaethics more generally.

The motivation argument and motivational internalism

Much in contemporary metaethics revolves around the two positions known as ‘motivational internalism’ and the ‘Humean theory of motivation’. The importance of these positions is mostly due to their role in what is considered to be the most powerful argument for metaethical non-cognitivism: the so-called ‘motivation argument’ (MA). In my paper, I want to argue that widely accepted renditions of the MA, such as the rendition recently forwarded by Russ Shafer-Landau, are flawed in two senses. First, they fail to sufficiently distinguish between conceptual claims and empirical psychological claims, thereby somewhat obscuring the status of the argument and its conclusion. Secondly, they start from definitions of motivational internalism that are, in crucial respects, too strong. Motivational internalism is usually formulated as the claim that moral judgements necessarily motivate; as I want to argue, however, the claim that moral judgements potentially motivate is all the motivational internalism a noncognitivist defender of the MA is ever going to need.