Moral Confirmation vs. Moral Explanation: A Tale of Two Challenges

Res Philosophica 98 (1):1-21 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In the first chapter of The Nature of Morality (1977), Gilbert Harman sets out what he takes to be the “basic issue” confronting moral philosophy: whether moral principles can be “tested and confirmed in the way that scientific principles can... out in the world” (3–4). Harman argues that they can’t be. In this paper I argue that if we reject the Harmanian view that confirmation is the converse of explanation, then we can agree with the naturalist realist on the basic epistemological issue of whether moral principles can be tested and confirmed in the way that scientific principles can. But I argue that there nevertheless is an important metaphysical way in which moral explanations differ from certain kinds of non-moral explanations. An upshot is that even realists who think that moral facts are necessary, causally inefficacious, and knowable a priori can agree that moral claims are subject to empirical confirmation in the way that scientific claims are.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,923

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Confirmation theory and moral justification.Edward D. Sherline - 1994 - Philosophical Studies 73 (2-3):225 - 238.
A Unificationist Vindication of Moral Explanation.Lei Zhong - 2011 - Philosophical Forum 42 (2):131-146.
Inference to the Best Explanation and Justification in Ethics.Storm Mcclintock Bailey - 1997 - Dissertation, The University of Wisconsin - Madison
Moral Disagreement among Philosophers.Ralph Wedgwood - 2014 - In Michael Bergmann & Patrick Kain (eds.), Challenges to Moral and Religious Belief: Disagreement and Evolution. Oxford University Press. pp. 23-39.
What is a Moral Law?Gideon Rosen - 2017 - Oxford Studies in Metaethics 12.
Moral Testimony: Once More with Feeling.Guy Fletcher - 2016 - Oxford Studies in Metaethics 11:45-73..
A defense of the very idea of moral deference pessimism.Max Lewis - 2020 - Philosophical Studies (8):2323-2340.
Why Moral Principles?Joe Mintoff - 2016 - Mind 125 (500):1133-1159.

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-01-01

Downloads
67 (#248,070)

6 months
15 (#184,405)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Sarah McGrath
Princeton University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Two Dogmas of Empiricism.Willard V. O. Quine - 1951 - Philosophical Review 60 (1):20–43.
The inference to the best explanation.Gilbert H. Harman - 1965 - Philosophical Review 74 (1):88-95.
The Problems of Philosophy.Bertrand Russell - 1912 - Mind 21 (84):556-564.
Two Dogmas of Empiricism.W. V. Quine - 1951 - Philosophical Review 60 (1):20-43.
Objectivity and Truth: You’d Better Believe it.Ronald Dworkin - 1996 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 25 (2):87-139.

View all 17 references / Add more references