ESTONIAN ACADEMY
PUBLISHERS
eesti teaduste
akadeemia kirjastus
PUBLISHED
SINCE 1997
 
TRAMES cover
TRAMES. A Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences
ISSN 1736-7514 (Electronic)
ISSN 1406-0922 (Print)
Impact Factor (2020): 0.5

META-ETHICAL DISAGREEMENTS; pp. 423–439

Full article in PDF format | 10.3176/tr.2020.3.09

Author
Francesco Orsi

Abstract

In “Objectivity and truth: you’d better believe it” (1996) Ronald Dworkin attacked what he calls Archimedean scepticism about morality. His central argument, however, brings into question both such scepticism and the views which oppose it, concluding that many meta-ethical disagreements are purely verbal or, really, first-order moral ones. In this article I illustrate the scope of Dworkin’s argument, examine (and reject) some responses to Dworkin, and finally show that many genuine meta-ethical disagreements can be rescued from Dworkin’s argument, by being understood as neither purely verbal nor narrowly moral disagreements, but rather as normative debates about what is appropriate to do when engaged in moral argument.


References

Ayer, Alfred J. (1936) Language, truth, and logic. London: Dover Publications.

Blackburn, Simon (1984) Spreading the word: groundings in the philosophy of language. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Blackburn, Simon (1996) “Commentary on Dworkin”. Available online at . Accessed on July 3, 2020.

Bloomfield, Paul (2009) “Archimedeanism and why metaethics matters”. Oxford Studies in Metaethics 4, 283–302.

Dreier, Jamie (2002) “Metaethics and normative commitment”. Philosophical Issues 12, 1, 241–263.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-2237.2002.tb00069.x

Dworkin, Ronald (1996) “Objectivity and truth: you’d better believe it”. Philosophy and Public Affairs 25, 2, 87–139.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.1996.tb00036.x

Dworkin, Ronald (2011) Justice for hedgehogs. Harvard: Belknap.
https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vkt

Enoch, David (2010) “How objectivity matters”. Oxford Studies in Metaethics 5, 111–152.

Erdur, Melis (2016) “A moral argument against moral realism”. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 19, 3, 591–602.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-015-9676-3

Garner, Richard and Richard Joyce, eds. (2019) The end of morality: taking abolitionism seriously. New York: Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351122153

Hare, Richard M. (1952) The language of morals. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Horgan, Terry and Mark Timmons (1991) “New wave moral realism meets Moral Twin Earth”. Journal of Philosophical Research 16, 447–465.
https://doi.org/10.5840/jpr_1991_19

Kramer, Matthew H. (2009) Moral realism as a moral doctrine. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444310641

Mackie, J. L. (1977) Ethics, inventing right and wrong. London: Penguin Books.

McPherson, Tristram (2008) “Metaethics and the autonomy of morality”. Philosophers’ Imprint 8, 1–16.

Shafer-Landau, Russ (2010) “The possibility of metaethics”. Boston University Law Review 90, 2, 479–496.

Smith, Michael (2010) “Dworkin on external scepticism”. Boston University Law Review 90, 2, 509–520.

Stevenson, Charles L. (1937) “The emotive meaning of ethical terms”. Mind 46, 181, 14–31.
https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/XLVI.181.14

Street, Sharon (2016) “Objectivity and truth: you’d better rethink it”. Oxford Studies in Metaethics 11, 293–334.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198784647.003.0012

Suikkanen, Jussi and Antti Kauppinen, eds. (2019) Methodology and moral philosophy. London: Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429452284

Väyrynen, Pekka (2019) “Normative commitments in metanormative theory”. In Jussi Suikkanen and Antti Kauppinen, eds. Methodology and moral philosophy, 193–213. London: Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429452284-10


Back to Issue