“…As Matthew Chrisman (2008) has noted, the proposal offered by Dreier has trouble with false beliefs. How would Dreier's account distinguish cosmological realists from cosmological antirealists?…”
Section: Varieties Of Antirealism and Realismmentioning
The metaphysical dispute between moral realists and antirealists is cast in terms of properties: the realist holds that moral properties exist, the antirealist denies this claim. There is a longstanding philosophical dispute over the nature of properties, and the obscurity of properties may make the realist/antirealist dispute even more obscure. In the spirit of deflationary theories of truth, we can turn to a deflationary theory of properties in order to clarify this issue. One might reasonably worry that such an account of properties would not be capable of properly characterizing disputes regarding the existence or nonexistence of genuine moral properties. In this paper, I will show that, within this framework, the traditional disputes over the existence of moral properties can be characterized in a far clearer fashion than is usually the case. A deflationary account of properties, along with an explanatory hierarchy of properties, makes the dispute in ontology clear.Arguments in metaethics over the metaphysics of morality have been plagued with confusion for quite some time, at least since G.E. Moore wrote Principia Ethica (1903). Moore claimed that good is a simple, indefinable, non-natural property, but later confessed that he did not give a clear explanation of what a non-natural property is. Moore wrote in his reply to criticism by C.D. Broad that 'in Principia I Acta Anal (2010) 25:285-298
“…As Matthew Chrisman (2008) has noted, the proposal offered by Dreier has trouble with false beliefs. How would Dreier's account distinguish cosmological realists from cosmological antirealists?…”
Section: Varieties Of Antirealism and Realismmentioning
The metaphysical dispute between moral realists and antirealists is cast in terms of properties: the realist holds that moral properties exist, the antirealist denies this claim. There is a longstanding philosophical dispute over the nature of properties, and the obscurity of properties may make the realist/antirealist dispute even more obscure. In the spirit of deflationary theories of truth, we can turn to a deflationary theory of properties in order to clarify this issue. One might reasonably worry that such an account of properties would not be capable of properly characterizing disputes regarding the existence or nonexistence of genuine moral properties. In this paper, I will show that, within this framework, the traditional disputes over the existence of moral properties can be characterized in a far clearer fashion than is usually the case. A deflationary account of properties, along with an explanatory hierarchy of properties, makes the dispute in ontology clear.Arguments in metaethics over the metaphysics of morality have been plagued with confusion for quite some time, at least since G.E. Moore wrote Principia Ethica (1903). Moore claimed that good is a simple, indefinable, non-natural property, but later confessed that he did not give a clear explanation of what a non-natural property is. Moore wrote in his reply to criticism by C.D. Broad that 'in Principia I Acta Anal (2010) 25:285-298
“…6.1). In addition, compare also Chrisman's (2008) own criticism of Dreier's (2004) explanatory approach and my previous footnote about Chrisman's take on implicit explanatory status. 11 Compare Blackburn (1980Blackburn ( , 1984Blackburn ( , 1998, Gibbard (2003), Dreier (2004).…”
Section: Bringing the E-world Back Inmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Starting with the former, Chrisman closely follows Robert Brandom in positing that the meaning of statements is constituted by their inferential role within the practice of making statements and asking for reasons (Chrisman 2008(Chrisman , 2011Brandom 1994Brandom , 2008. This is specified, firstly, by the statements and circumstances that license making a particular statement S-call these the upstream inferential antecedents that can be quoted in support of S's truth-and, secondly, by the statements and actions which are licensed by S-call these the downstream inferential consequences that follow from S. Asserting a statement amounts to undertaking an inferential commitment, where inferential commitments are neither to be understood ontologically in the sense of being commitments about the existence of some facts, nor psychologically as expressions of particular mental states.…”
According to recent suggestions within the global pragmatism discussion, metaethical debate must be fundamentally re-framed. Instead of carving out metaethical differences in representational terms, it has been argued that metaethics should be given an inferentialist footing. In this paper, I put inferentialist metaethics to the test by subjecting it to the following two criteria for success: Inferentialist metaethicists must (1) be able to save the metaethical differences between moral realism and expressivism, and (2) do so in a way that employs understandings of these metaethical accounts which would be acceptable to moral realists or expressivists who endorse an inferentialist theory of meaning. Two results follow from my discussion. The first concerns inferentialist metaethics more narrowly, casting doubts on inferentialists' ability to fulfil the two criteria for success by showing that proposed metaethical demarcation attempts either meet the first criterion but violate the second, or pass the second criterion but fail the first. The second upshot pertains to the global pragmatism debate more widely, pressing the point that inferentialists have not as yet provided a convincing account of ontological commitment.
“…It has been argued that there is no reason to assume that a principled difference exists between predicates which are the normal target of an expressivist theory and common predicates such as ‘tall’, ‘blue’, etc., and that there is no way to detect the difference between the group of expressions normally addressed by expressivists and the rest of the predicates simply by examining the surface structure (see Schroeder ; Thomas , Chrisman , 337–338).Once we characterize noncognitivist views in this way, moreover, it is easy to characterize the crux of the Frege‐Geach Problem. It is that there is no linguistic evidence whatsoever that the meaning of moral terms works differently than that of ordinary descriptive terms.…”
Section: One Small Obstacle Out Of the Waymentioning
The purpose of this paper is twofold: first we outline a version of non‐descriptivism, ‘minimal expressivism’, leaving aside certain long‐standing problems associated with conventional expressivist views. Second, we examine the way in which familiar expressivist results can be accommodated within this framework, through a particular interpretation that the expressive realm lends to a theory of meaning. Expressivist theories of meaning address only a portion of the classical problems attributed to this position when they seek to explain why the expressions they deal with have a given meaning. A position can nevertheless be termed ‘expressivist’ – in the minimal sense that we favor – based simply on the following key features of the meaning of these expressions: they can be used as functions of propositions, and they are not used to describe the way the world is.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
