Abstract
It is commonly claimed that reliance upon moral testimony is problematic in a way not common to reliance upon non-moral testimony. This chapter provides a new explanation of what the problem consists in—one that enjoys advantages over the most widely accepted explanation in the extant literature (in short, that moral deference undermines moral worth). The main theses of the chapter are as follows: (1) that many forms of normative deference beyond the moral are problematic (including aesthetic and prudential deference), (2) that there is a common explanation of the problem with all of these forms of deference—an explanation that is based on the connection between the relevant judgments and desire-like attitudes, and (3) that this explanation is compatible with moral realism
Original language | English |
---|---|
Title of host publication | Oxford Studies in Metaethics |
Editors | Russ Shafer-Landau |
Place of Publication | Oxford |
Publisher | Oxford University Press |
Chapter | 3 |
Pages | 45-73 |
Number of pages | 29 |
Volume | 11 |
ISBN (Electronic) | 9780191087608 |
ISBN (Print) | 9780198784647, 9780198784654 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 2016 |
Publication series
Name | Oxford Studies in Metaethics |
---|---|
Publisher | Oxford University Press |
Volume | 11 |
Keywords
- moral testimony
- moral realism
- non-cognitivism
- aesthetic judgments
- normative judgments
- prudential judgments
- moral worth
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Moral testimony: Once more with feeling'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Profiles
-
Guy Fletcher
- School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences - Senior Lecturer
Person: Academic: Research Active