Dissertation, University of Michigan (2010)
Authors |
|
Abstract |
Many philosophers insist that moral facts or properties play no role in explaining natural phenomena. The problem of moral explanation has raised metaphysical, semantic and epistemic challenges to contemporary moral realism. In my dissertation, I attempt to vindicate the explanatory efficacy of moral properties, while at the same time respecting the autonomy and normativity of morality. In doing so, I will advocate a sort of non-reductive ethical naturalism, according to which moral properties are natural properties, and yet remain irreducible to non-normative natural properties, such as psychological, biological, and sociological properties. More specifically, I develop a form of moral functionalism to vindicate moral explanation. Moral functionalism understands moral properties as second-order, functional properties, the natures of which are characterized in terms of functional roles. My version of moral functionalism has two particular features. First, it is a form of a posteriori moral functionalism. The moral theory used to characterize the functional roles of moral properties can only be discovered by appeal to empirical investigation. Second, it is a holistic version of moral functionalism. The functional role of a moral property cannot be identified solely in terms of non-normative properties; rather, it essentially involves a network of connections to both non-normative and normative properties. It is important to note that the question of whether moral properties have explanatory power bears on the question of what explanation or explanatoriness is. In my dissertation, I attempt to show that my vindication of moral explanation presupposes a plausible account of explanation. Obviously I cannot discuss all theories of explanation; my dissertation will rather focus on two influential accounts of explanation: the causalist model and the unificationist model. Then I argue that moral properties understood as functional properties of the kind I have described can do causal-explanatory work and play a distinctive unifying role.
|
Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) |
Categories |
No categories specified (categorize this paper) |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Can Program Explanation Confer Ontological Rights for the Cornell Realist Variety of Moral Realism?Andrew Field - unknown
Moral Realism and Program Explanation.Mark T. Nelson - 2006 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 84 (3):417 – 428.
Moral Supervenience and Distinctness: Comments on Dreier.Joshua Gert - 2019 - Philosophical Studies 176 (6):1409-1416.
A Biological Alternative to Moral Explanations.Joseph Millum - 2008 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 46 (3):385-407.
The Prospects of a Naturalist Theory of Goodness: A Neo-Aristotelian Approach.Jeff Steele - 2013 - Florida Philosophical Review 13 (1):29-39.
Reductive Explanation and the "Explanatory Gap".Peter Carruthers - 2004 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 34 (2):153-174.
Moral Realism and Program Explanation: A Very Short Symposium 1: Reply to Nelson.Alexander Miller - 2009 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87 (2):337-341.
Realist Ethical Naturalism for Ethical Non-Naturalists.Ryan Stringer - 2018 - Philosophical Studies 175 (2):339-362.
A Unificationist Vindication of Moral Explanation.Lei Zhong - 2011 - Philosophical Forum 42 (2):131-146.
Two Kinds of Naturalism in Ethics.Neil Sinclair - 2006 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 9 (4):417 - 439.
Conceptual Analysis and Reductive Explanation.David J. Chalmers & Frank Jackson - 2001 - Philosophical Review 110 (3):315-61.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2021-08-05
Total views
7 ( #1,068,182 of 2,507,717 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #416,820 of 2,507,717 )
2021-08-05
Total views
7 ( #1,068,182 of 2,507,717 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #416,820 of 2,507,717 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads