Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T14:02:13.465Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Why conceptual competence won’t help the non-naturalist epistemologist

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Preston J. Werner*
Affiliation:
Centre for Moral and Political Philosophy, Department of Philosophy, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel

Abstract

Non-naturalist normative realists face an epistemological objection: They must explain how their preferred route of justification ensures a non-accidental connection between justified moral beliefs and the normative truths. One strategy for meeting this challenge begins by pointing out that we are semantically or conceptually competent in our use of the normative terms, and then argues that this competence guarantees the non-accidental truth of some of our first-order normative beliefs. In this paper, I argue against this strategy by illustrating that this competence based strategy undermines the non-naturalist's ability to capture the robustly normative content of our moral beliefs.

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Philosophy 2018

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

Audi, Robert. 2008. “Intuition, Inference, and Rational Disagreement in Ethics.” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 11(5): 475492. 10.1007/s10677-008-9123-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Audi, Robert. 2015. “Intuition and Its Place in Ethics.” Journal of the American Philosophical Association 1(1): 5777. 10.1017/apa.2014.29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balaguer, Mark. 1998. Platonism and Anti-Platonism in Mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Derek. (2017). “The Varieties of Normativity.” The Routledge Handbook of Metaethics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bedke, Matthew. 2014a. “No Coincidence?Oxford Studies in Metaethics 9: 76101.Google Scholar
Bedke, Matthew. 2014b. “A Menagerie of Duties? Normative Judgments Are Not Beliefs about Non-Natural Properties.” American Philosophical Quarterly 51(3): 189201.Google Scholar
Chalmers, David. 2004. “Epistemic Two-Dimensional Semantics.” Philosophical Studies 118(1/2): 153226. 10.1023/B:PHIL.0000019546.17135.e0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalmers, David. 2012. Constructing the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chalmers, David, and Jackson, Frank. 2001. “Conceptual Analysis and Reductive Explanation.” Philosophical Review 110(3): 315360. 10.1215/00318108-110-3-315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copp, David. 2005. “Moral Naturalism and Three Grades of Normativity.” In Normativity and Naturalism, edited by Schaber, Peter, 249283). Frankfurt: Ontos-Verlag.Google Scholar
Cuneo, Terence, and Shafer-Landau, Russ. 2014. “The Moral Fixed Points: New Directions for Moral Nonnaturalism.” Philosophical Studies 171: 145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enoch, David. 2011. Taking Morality Seriously. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199579969.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Gareth. 1982. The Varieties of Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Foot, Philippa. 1972. “Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives.” The Philosophical Review 81(3): 305316. 10.2307/2184328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foot, Philippa. 1995. “Does Moral Subjectivism Rest on a Mistake?Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 15(1): 114. 10.1093/ojls/15.1.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Benjamin James. 2014. “Evolutionary Debunking Arguments and the Reliability of Moral Cognition.” Philosophical Studies 168(2): 457473. 10.1007/s11098-013-0140-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huemer, Michael. 2001. Skepticism and the Veil of Perception. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Huemer, Michael. 2005. Ethical Intuitionism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Huemer, Michael. 2007. “Compassionate Phenomenal Conservatism.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 74(1): 3055. 10.1111/phpr.2007.74.issue-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenman, James. 2010. “Uggles and Muggles: Wedgwood on Normative Thought and Justification.” Philosophical Studies 151(3): 469477. 10.1007/s11098-010-9552-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linsky, Bernard, and Zalta, Edward N.. 1995. “Naturalized Platonism versus Platonized Naturalism.” Journal of Philosophy 92(10): 525555. 10.2307/2940786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPherson, Tristram. 2011. “Against Quietist Normative Realism.” Philosophical Studies 154(2): 223240. 10.1007/s11098-010-9535-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paakkunainen, Hille. forthcoming. “The ‘Just Too Different’ Objection to Normative Naturalism.” Philosophy Compass.Google Scholar
Parfit, Derek. 2011. On What Matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Peacocke, Christopher. 1993. “How Are a Priori Truths Possible?European Journal of Philosophy 1(2): 175199. 10.1111/ejop.1993.1.issue-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prior, A. N. 1960. “The Runabout Inference Ticket.” Analysis 21: 3839. 10.1093/analys/21.2.38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeter, Laura. 2014. “Normative Concepts: A Connectedness Model.” Philosopher's Imprint 14(25): 126.Google Scholar
Schroeter, Laura, and Schroeter, François. 2017. “The Generalized Integration Challenge in Metaethics.” Nous: 132.Google Scholar
Shafer-Landau, Russ. 2005. Moral Realism: A Defence. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Shafer-Landau, Russ. 2009. “X-a Defence of Categorical Reasons.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 109(1pt2): 189206. 10.1111/pash.2009.109.issue-1pt2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Street, Sharon. 2006. “A Darwinian Dilemma for Realist Theories of Value.” Philosophical Studies 127(1): 109166. 10.1007/s11098-005-1726-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suikkanen, Jussi. 2017. “Non-Naturalism and Reference.” Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 11(2): 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vavova, Katia. 2014. “Debunking Evolutionary Debunking.” Oxford Studies in Metaethics 9: 76101. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198709299.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wedgwood, Ralph. 2001. “Conceptual Role Semantics for Moral Terms.” Philosophical Review 110(1): 130. 10.1215/00318108-110-1-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wedgwood, Ralph. 2007. The Nature of Normativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199251315.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar