Culturalist Moral Realism

In Arto Laitinen & Nicholas H. Smith (eds.), Perspectives on the Philosophy of Charles Taylor. Acta Philosophica Fennica. pp. 115-131 (2002)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this paper I defend a ‘culturalist’ but nevertheless non-relativistic moral theory, taking Charles Taylor’s writings on this topic as my guide.1 Taylor is a realist concerning natural sciences, the ontology of persons and the ontology of goods (or meanings, significances or values). Yet, his realisms in these three areas differ significantly from one another, and therefore one has to be careful not to presuppose too rigid views of what realism must be like. Taylor’s moral realism can be called culturalist, phenomenological, hermeneutical or even ‘expressivist’.2 According to culturalist moral realism, cognitivism is the correct view of our ordinary moral and evaluative reactions and responses to situations. In the realm of evaluative judgements, genuinely correct and incorrect (and better and worse) judgements are possible. These judgements can be implicit in our moral emotions and tacit agent’s knowledge, or more explicit in different articulations (section 1). What makes evaluative judgements correct are evaluative properties or ‘imports’ of the situation, and both the evaluative features of situations and our correct responses to them can be further understood in terms of a plurality of (conflicting and incommensurable) goods, ideals or values (section 2). The evaluative realm is not accessible from a disengaged perspective, but only from within an engaged, lifeworldly perspective. Evaluative properties are not merely a matter of subjective projection nor merely a matter of objective properties independent of valuers. Evaluative properties are relational, and neither the objective nor the subjective pole has priority (Section 3). The evaluative realm is in some sense dependent on social forms (concepts and practices), which are historically changing. Yet the validity of goods is (potentially) universal, goods that are valid in our culture would be valid in other cultures as well and vice versa. The correctness of evaluative judgements is not restricted by one’s own (or one’s culture’s) evaluations, framework or orientation (i.e..

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,349

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Evaluation, uncertainty and motivation.Michael Smith - 2002 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 5 (3):305-320.
Must Metaethical Realism Make a Semantic Claim?Guy Kahane - 2013 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 10 (2):148-178.
Moral Perception and Its Evaluative Dimension.Xinyan Jiang - 2008 - Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 10:215-220.
A Critique of Charles Taylor's Notions of “Moral Sources” and “Constitutive Goods”.Arto Laitinen - 2004 - In Jussi Kotkavirta & Michael Quante (eds.), Moral Realism. Acta Philosophica Fennica. pp. 73-104.
Consensus and Excellence of Reasons.Jeremy Randel Koons - 2003 - Journal of Philosophical Research 28:83-103.
Shapelessness in Context.Pekka Väyrynen - 2012 - Noûs 48 (3):573-593.
The intersubjective validity of aesthetic judgements.Malcolm Budd - 2007 - British Journal of Aesthetics 47 (4):333-371.
Relaxing a Tension in Adam Smith's Account of Sympathy.John W. McHugh - 2011 - Journal of Scottish Philosophy 9 (2):189-204.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-09-25

Downloads
42 (#368,825)

6 months
2 (#1,263,261)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Arto Laitinen
Tampere University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references