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 PLURALISM AND DISAGREEMENT; pp. 459–483

Full article in PDF format | 10.3176/tr.2020.3.11

Author
Stijn van Gorkum

Abstract

Some theorists in meta-ethics have recently defended so-called ‘meta-ethical pluralism’, which denies that ordinary moral discourse is uniform, instead claiming that it contains several different concepts of morality. But critics have objected that such a theory cannot adequately explain both moral and meta-ethical disagreement, because the use of, or focus on, different concepts, respectively, means that speakers in these contexts would frequently end up talking past each other instead of having a genuine disagreement. In response, I will argue that, in both cases, pluralism leaves more room for disagreement than its critics have thought: in ordinary moral discourse, speakers could still disagree about content that is communicated as a matter of pragmatics rather than semantics; and in meta-ethics, they could dispute both how moral discourse is to be conceptualized, and which concept is best. And that undermines any immediate inference from the presence of disagreement to the falsity of pluralism.


References

Beebe, James R (2014) “How different kinds of disagreement impact folk metaethical judgments”. In H. Sarkissian and J. C. Wright, eds. Advances in experimental moral psychology, 167–187. London: Bloomsbury.

Beebe, James R (2015) “The empirical study of folk metaethics”. Etyka 15, 11–28.
https://doi.org/10.14394/etyka.486

Beebe, James R. and David Sackris (2016) “Moral objectivism across the lifespan”. Philosophical Psychology 29, 6, 912–929.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2016.1174843

Blackburn, Simon (1984) Spreading the word. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Burgess, Alexis and David Plunkett (2013a) “Conceptual ethics I”. Philosophy Compass 8, 12, 1091–1101.
https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12086

Burgess, Alexis and David Plunkett (2013b) “Conceptual ethics II”. Philosophy Compass 8, 12, 1102–1110.
https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12085

De Mesel, Benjamin (2016) “De semantische uniformiteit van het morele: over een vooronderstelling in de hedendaagse meta-ethiek”. Tijdschrift voor Filosofie 78, 121–153.

Egan, Andy (2012) “Relativist dispositional theories of value”. The Southern Journal of Philosophy 50, 4, 557–582.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-6962.2012.00136.x

Feltz, Adam and Edward T. Cokely (2008) “The fragmented folk: more evidence of stable
individual differences in moral judgments and folk intuitions”. In B. C. Love, K. McRae and
V. M. Sloutsky, eds. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 1771–1776. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

Finlay, Stephen (2014) Confusion of tongues: a theory of normative language. New York: Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199347490.001.0001

Finlay, Stephen (2017) “Disagreement lost and found”. Oxford Studies in Metaethics 12, 187–205.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198805076.003.0008

Finlay, Stephen (2019) “Defining normativity”. In D. Plunkett, S. J. Shapiro, and K. Toh, eds. Dimensions of normativity: new essays on metaethics and jurisprudence, 187–220. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190640408.003.0009

Fisher, Matthew, Joshua Knobe, Brent Strickland, and Frank C. Keil (2017) “The influence of social interaction on intuitions of objectivity and subjectivity”. Cognitive Science 41, 4, 1119–1134.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12380

Francén Olinder, Ragnar (2010) “Moral motivation pluralism”. Journal of Ethics 14, 117–148.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-010-9074-y

Francén Olinder, Ragnar (2012) “Moral and metaethical pluralism: unity in variation”. Southern Journal of Philosophy 50, 583–601.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-6962.2012.00138.x

Gibbard, Alan (1990) Wise choices, apt feelings. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gill, Michael B. (2008) “Metaethical variability, incoherence, and error”. In W. Sinnott-Armstrong, ed. Moral psychology. Vol. 2: The cognitive science of morality: intuition and diversity, 387–401. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gill, Michael B. (2009) “Indeterminacy and variability in metaethics”. Philosophical Studies 145, 2, 215–234.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-008-9220-6

Goodwin, Geoffrey P. and John M. Darley (2008) “The psychology of meta-ethics: exploring objectivism”. Cognition 106, 1339–1366.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.06.007

Goodwin, Geoffrey P. and John M. Darley (2012) “Why are some moral beliefs perceived to be more objective than others?”. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48, 250–256.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.08.006

Hare, Richard M. (1952) [1991] The language of morals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Horgan, Terence and Mark Timmons (1990) “New wave moral realism meets Moral Twin Earth”. Journal of Philosophical Research 16, 447–465.
https://doi.org/10.5840/jpr_1991_19

Horgan, Terence and Mark Timmons (1992) “Troubles for new wave moral semantics: the ‘open-question’ argument”. Philosophical Papers 21, 153–175.
https://doi.org/10.1080/05568649209506380

Johansson, Jens and Jonas Olson (2015) “Against pluralism in metaethics”. In C. Daly, ed. The Palgrave handbook of philosophical methods, 593–609. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137344557_24

Joyce, Richard (2012) “Metaethical pluralism: how both moral naturalism and moral skepticism may be permissible positions”. In S. Nuccetelli and G. Seay, eds. Ethical naturalism: current debates, 89–109. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511894633.006

Khoo, Justin and Joshua Knobe (2018) “Moral disagreement and moral semantics” Noûs 52, 1, 109–143.
https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12151

Lasersohn, Peter (2005) “Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste”. Linguistics and Philosophy 28, 6, 643–686.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-005-0596-x

Loeb, Don (2008a) “Moral incoherentism: how to pull a metaphysical rabbit out of asemantic hat”. In W. Sinnott-Armstrong, ed. Moral psychology. Vol. 2: The cognitive science of morality: intuition and diversity, 355–386. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Loeb, Don (2008b) “Reply to Gill and Sayre-McCord”. In W. Sinnott-Armstrong, ed. Moral psychology. Vol. 2: The cognitive science of morality: intuition and diversity, 413–422. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Merli, David (2009) “Possessing moral concepts”. Philosophia 37, 535–556.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-009-9180-x

Moore, George E. (1922) Philosophical studies. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Co. Inc.

Nichols, Shaun (2004) “After objectivity: an empirical study of moral judgment”. Philosophical Psychology 17, 1, 5–28.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0951508042000202354

Park, John J. (2013) “Prototypes, exemplars, and theoretical & applied ethics”. Neuroethics 6, 2, 237–247.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-011-9106-8

Plunkett, David and Tim Sundell (2013) “Disagreement and the semantics of normative and evaluative terms”. Philosophers’ Imprint 13, 23, 1–37.

Pölzler, Thomas and Jennifer Cole Wright (2020) “Anti-realist pluralism: a new approach to folk metaethics”. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 11, 53–82.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-019-00447-8

Sarkissian, Hagop (2016) “Aspects of folk morality: objectivism and relativism”. In J. Sytsma and
W. Buckwalter, eds. A companion to experimental philosophy, 212–224. Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118661666.ch14

Sarkissian, Hagop, John Park, David Tien, Jennifer Cole Wright, and Joshua Knobe (2011) “Folk moral relativism”. Mind & Language 26, 4, 482–505.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2011.01428.x

Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter (2009) “Mixed-up meta-ethics”. Philosophical Issues 19, 235–256.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-6077.2009.00168.x

Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter and Thalia Wheatley (2012) “The disunity of morality and why it matters to philosophy”. The Monist 95, 3, 355–377.
https://doi.org/10.5840/monist201295319

Smith, Michael (1994) The moral problem. Oxford: Blackwell.

Wright, Jennifer Cole (2018) “The fact and function of meta-ethical pluralism: exploring the evidence”. In T. Lombrozo, J. Knobe and S. Nichols, eds. Oxford studies in experimental philosophy. Vol. 2, 119–150. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wright, Jennifer Cole, Piper T. Grandjean, and Cullen B. McWhite (2012) “The meta-ethical grounding of our moral beliefs: evidence for metaethical pluralism”. Philosophical Psychology 26, 3, 336–361.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2011.633751


Back to Issue