Jamie Dreier (left) and Mark Schroeder (right) on metaethical contextualism, expressivism, and relativism.
Why are we motivated to do what we believe to be morally right? Relativism, contextualism, and expressivism provide straightforward answers to that question. But each of these views must face its own distinctive challenges. Dreier and Schroeder provide a guided tour of those challenges with a focus on problems arising from competing accounts of moral truth and moral disagreement. They finish by addressing a meta-metaethical question: Are disagreements between rival metaethicists substantive?
Related works
by Dreier:
“Expressivist Embeddings and Minimalist Truth” (1994)
“Transforming Expressivism” (1999)
“Relativism (and Expressivism) and the Problem of Disagreement” (2009)
PEA Soup: A Contextualist Solution to a Puzzle about ‘Ought’s and ‘If’s (2010)by Schroeder:
“How Expressivists Can and Should Solve Their Problem with Negation” (2008)
“Expression for Expressivists” (2008)
“Hybrid Expressivism: Virtues and Vices” (2009)
Being For (2010)See also:
Experimental Philosophy: Hagop Sarkissian, Are People Actually Moral Objectivists?
Andy Egan, “Relativism about epistemic modals” (2010)More video:
Mark Schroeder and Will Wilkinson (BhTV)To download this episode of Philosophy TV right click here and select “save link as” to download a .mp4 version of this conversation. If your mobile device supports .mp4 streaming, clicking that link will allow you stream the video.
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
Philosophy TV - Jamie Dreier and Mark Schroeder on Competing Accounts of Moral Truth and Moral Disagreement
Cool discussion - not only do they discuss the issue of conflicting metaethics and truth claims, but they frame the discussion in the context of three ethical perspectives: relativism, contextualism, and expressivism.
Tags:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment