Quasi-realism and fundamental moral error 1
Author:
Andy Egan a
| Affiliation: | a Australian National University, University of Michigan, |
DOI:
10.1080/00048400701342988
Publication Frequency:
4 issues per year
Subject:
Philosophy;
Formats available:
HTML
(English)
:
PDF
(English)
Previously published as:
Australasian Journal of Psychology and Philosophy
(1832-8660)
until 1947
View Article:
View Article (PDF)
View Article (HTML)
Abstract
A common first reaction to expressivist and quasi-realist theories is the thought that, if these theories are right, there's some objectionable sense in which we can't be wrong about morality. This worry turns out to be surprisingly difficult to make stick—an account of moral error as instability under improving changes provides the quasi-realist with the resources to explain many of our concerns about moral error. The story breaks down, though, in the case of fundamental moral error. This is where the initial worry finally sticks—quasi-realism tells me that I can't be fundamentally wrong about morality, though others can.
|
|
1Thanks to Ralph Wedgwood, Michael Smith, Tyler Doggett, James John, Daniel Korman, Judith Thomson, Alex Byrne, Ned Hall, Ned Markosian, Robert Stalnaker, Terence Cuneo, Peter Railton, the Western Washington University faculty seminar, and audiences and commentators at the University of Colorado Student Philosophy Conference, the Louisiana State University Ethics Symposium, the Australian National University, the University of Auckland, and the University of Sydney, and to the anonymous referees for this journal, for helpful comments, suggestions, and objections.
|
| view references (27) |

Download Citation


CiteULike
Del.icio.us
BibSonomy
Connotea