Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-04T13:40:27.995Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Explanationist Argument For Moral Realism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Neil Sinclair
Neil Sinclair*
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham, NottinghamNG7 2RD, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In this paper I argue that the explanationist argument in favour of moral realism fails. According to this argument, the ability of putative moral properties to feature in good explanations provides strong evidence for, or entails, the metaphysical claims of moral realism. Some have rejected this argument by denying that moral explanations are ever good explanations. My criticism is different. I will argue that even if we accept that moral explanations are (sometimes) good explanations the metaphysical claims of realism do not follow.

According to moral realists, moral properties such as justice and goodness take their own unique place in nature's ontological roll-call. Although realists disagree about the nature of these moral properties — for example, whether they are reducible or otherwise constituted by non-moral or natural properties — they all agree that such properties are genuine constituents of the world that are sometimes instantiated by objects, events or states of affairs.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 1 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Blackburn, S. 1980. ‘Truth, Realism and the Regulation of Theory.’ Midwest Studies in Philosophy 5: 353–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackburn, S. 1991. ‘Just Causes.’ Philosophical Studies 61: 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackburn, S. 1993. Essays in Quasi-Realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blackburn, S. 1998. Ruling Passions. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Baker, A. 2005. ‘Are there Genuine Mathematical Explanations of Physical Phenomenaヨ’ Mind 114: 223–38.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, P. 2009. ‘Moral Realism and Programme Explanation: A Very Short Symposium 1: Reply to Miller.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87: 343–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. 1959. ‘The Elimination of Metaphysics Through Logical Analysis of Language.’ In Logical Positivism, Ayer, A.J. ed. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Colyvan, M. 2001. The Indispensability of Mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwall, S. A., Gibbard and P., Railton 1992. ‘Toward Fin de siècle Ethics: Some Trends.’ Philosophical Review 101: 115–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, A. 1984. ‘The Natural Ontological Attitude.’ In Scientific Realism, Leplin, J. ed. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Fine, A. 1986. ‘Unnatural Attitudes: Realist and Instrumentalist Attachments to Science.’ Mind 95: 149–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbard, A. 1990. Wise Choices, Apt Feelings: A Theory of Normative Judgement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbard, A. 2003. Thinking How to Live. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Harcourt, E. 2005. ‘Quasi-Realism and Ethical Appearances.’ Mind 114: 249–75.Google Scholar
Hare, R.M. 1952. The Language of Morals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harman, G. 1975. ‘Moral Relativism Defended.’ Philosophical Review 84: 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harman, G. 1977. The Nature of Morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hempel, C.G. and Oppenheim, P.. 1948. ‘Studies in the Logic of Explanation.’ Philosophy of Science 15: 135–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, F. and Pettit, P.. 1990. ‘Program Explanation: A General Perspective.’ Analysis 50: 107–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyce, R. 2001. The Myth of Morality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leiter, B. 2001. ‘Moral Facts and Best Explanations.’ Social Philosophy and Policy 18: 79–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackie, J.L. 1977. Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Majors, B. 2003. ‘Moral Explanation and the Special Sciences.’ Philosophical Studies 113: 121–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Majors, B. 2007. ‘Moral Explanation.’ Philosophy Compass 2: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, A. 2003. An Introduction to Contemporary Metaethics. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Miller, A. 2009. ‘Moral Realism and Programme Explanation: A Very Short Symposium 1: Reply to Nelson.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87: 337–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millikan, R.A. 1911. ‘The Isolation of an Ion, A Precision Measurement of its Charge, and the Correction of Stoke's Law.’ Physical Review (Series 1) 32: 349–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millikan, R.A. 1913. ‘On the Elementary Electrical Charge and the Avogadro Constant.’ Physical Review (Series II) 2: 109–43.Google Scholar
Nolan, D. Restall, G. & West, C.. 2005. ‘Moral Fictionalism Versus the Rest.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 83: 307–30.Google Scholar
Nelson, M. 2006. ‘Moral Realism and Programme Explanation.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 84: 417–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickett, K.E. James, O.W. & Wilkinson, R.G.. 2006. ‘Income Inequality and the Prevalence of Mental Illness: A Preliminary International Analysis.’ Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 60: 646–7.Google ScholarPubMed
Quine, W. 1953. From a Logical Point of View. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Quinn, W. 1986. ‘Truth and Explanation in Ethics.’ Ethics 96: 524–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Railton, P. 1998. ‘Moral Explanation and Moral Objectivity.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 58: 175–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridge, M. 2006. ‘Saving the Ethical Appearances.’ Mind 115: 633–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sayre-McCord, G. 1988. ‘Moral Theory and Explanatory Impotence.’ In Essays on Moral Realism, Sayre-McCord, G. ed. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Salmon, N. and Soames, S. eds. 1988. Propositions and Attitudes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stevenson, C.L. 1963. Facts and Values: Studies in Ethical Analysis. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Sturgeon, N. 1986. ‘Harman on Moral Explanations of Natural Facts.’ Southern Journal of Philosophy 24, supplement: 69–78.Google Scholar
Sturgeon, N. 1988. ‘Moral Explanations.’ In Essays on Moral Realism, Sayre-McCord, G. ed. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Sturgeon, N. 2006. ‘Moral Explanations Defended.’ In Contemporary Debates in Moral Theory, Dreier, J. ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. 1980. The Scientific Image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar