scholarly journals Realism, Objectivity, and Evaluation

2020 ◽  
pp. 156-175
Author(s):  
Justin Clarke-Doane
Keyword(s):  
Mathematical Realism ◽  
Open Question Argument ◽  
Open Question

This chapter discusses “realist pluralism” in mathematics and morality. It argues that, under the assumption of pluralism, factual questions get deflated while practical -- i.e., what-to-do -- questions do not. It then uses this contrast to formulate a radicalization of Moore’s Open Question Argument. Practical questions remain open even when the facts, including the evaluative facts, come cheaply. The chapter concludes that practical realism must be false, but practical questions are objective in a paradigmatic respect. Conversely, mathematical realism is true, but mathematical questions fail to be objective. An important upshot of the discussion is that the concepts of realism and objectivity, which are widely identified, are actually in tension.

Normative Principles are Synthetic A Priori

Episteme ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 367-383
Author(s):  
Paul Boghossian
Keyword(s):  
A Priori ◽  
Moral Judgments ◽  
Moral Principle ◽  
Moral Principles ◽  
Justified Belief ◽  
Normative Concepts ◽  
Open Question Argument ◽  
Moral Domains ◽  
And Mathematics ◽  
Open Question

AbstractI argue for the claim that there are instances of a priori justified belief – in particular, justified belief in moral principles – that are not analytic, i.e., that cannot be explained solely by the understanding we have of their propositions. §1–2 provides the background necessary for understanding this claim: in particular, it distinguishes between two ways a proposition can be analytic, Basis and Constitutive, and provides the general form of a moral principle. §§3–5 consider whether Hume's Law, properly interpreted, can be established by Moore's Open Question Argument, and concludes that it cannot: while Moore's argument – appropriately modified – is effective against the idea that moral judgments are either (i) reductively analyzable or (ii) Constitutive-analytic, a different argument is needed to show that they are not (iii) Basis-analytic. Such an argument is supplied in §6. §§7–8 conclude by considering how these considerations bear on recent discussions of “alternative normative concepts”, on the epistemology of intuitions, and on the differences between disagreement in moral domains and in other a priori domains such as logic and mathematics.

scholarly journals Posible respuesta tomista a la ley de Hume y a la pregunta abierta de Moore

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-92
Author(s):  
Augusto Trujillo Werner
Keyword(s):  
Open Question Argument ◽  
Open Question

Este artículo se refiere a la doctrina práctica de Aquino sobre dos dificultades filosóficas que subyacen en gran parte del debate ético contemporáneo. Una es la Is-ought thesis de Hume y la otra es su consecuencia radical la Open-question argument de Moore. Estas paradojas éticas parecen tener sus raíces en un scepticismo epistemológico y en una antropología deficiente. La posible respuesta a ellas se puede encontrar en que: a) Tomás de Aquino defiende la esencial racionalidad y unidad del ser humano; b) La ley natural tomista es una consecuencia natural del ser racional; c) La razón humana es esencialmente teórica y práctica al mismotiempo. El intelecto humano de Aquino naturalmente realiza tres operaciones principales: 1º) Aprehender las nociones inteligidas y universales ens, verum y bonum. 2º) Formular los primeros principios teóricos y prácticos. 3º) Ordenar que se haga el bien inteligido y universal y se evite lo contrario. Por estas razones,la respuesta filosófica de Aquino a ambas dificultades no es exclusivamente ética, sino que abarca armónicamente la ontología, antropología y epistemología. La ética de Tomás de Aquino es fundamentalmente diferente de las éticas que califican las acciones como buenas o por mero consenso social (contractualismo) o simplemente calculando sus consecuencias (consecuencialismo). 

Direct Reference and the Open Question Argument

dialectica ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 67 (4) ◽  
pp. 383-402
Author(s):  
Niklas Möller
Keyword(s):  
Direct Reference ◽  
Open Question Argument ◽  
Open Question

Open question argument

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tristram McPherson
Keyword(s):  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Ethical Naturalism ◽  
Natural Properties ◽  
The Core ◽  
Open Questions ◽  
Open Question Argument ◽  
Naturalistic Account ◽  
Open Question

The open question argument is the heart of G.E. Moore’s case against ethical naturalism. Ethical naturalism is the view that goodness, rightness, etc. are natural properties; roughly, the sorts of properties that can be investigated by the natural sciences. Moore claims that, for any candidate naturalistic account of an ethical term according to which ‘good’ had the same meaning as some naturalistic term A, we might without confusion ask: ‘I see that this act is A, but is it good?’ Moore claimed that the existence of such open questions shows that ethical naturalism is mistaken. In the century since its introduction, the open question argument has faced a battery of objections. Despite these challenges, some contemporary philosophers claim that the core of Moore’s argument can be salvaged. The most influential defences link Moore’s argument to the difficulty that naturalistic ethical realists face in explaining the practical role of ethical concepts in deliberation.

The Is-Ought Problem, the Open Question Argument, and the new science of morality

Human Affairs ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Radim Bělohrad
Keyword(s):  
New Science ◽  
Open Question Argument ◽  
Open Question ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Is Ought Problem ◽  
Recent Attack

AbstractThe article deals with a recent attack by Sam Harris on two famous arguments that purport to establish a gap between factual and evaluative statements—Hume’s Is-Ought Problem and Moore’s Open Question Argument. I present the arguments, analyze the relationship between them and critically assess Harris’ attempt to refute them. I conclude that Harris’ attempt fails.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document