The Eligibility of Ethical Naturalism

Douglas Edwards

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Perhaps the two main contemporary formulations of ethical naturalism – Synthetic Ethical Naturalism (SEN) and Analytical Descriptivism – seem to conflict with plausible views about cases where moral debate and disagreement is possible. Both lack safeguards to avoid divergence of reference across different communities, which can scupper the prospects for genuine moral disagreement. I explore the prospects for supplementing both views with Lewis's notion of eligibility, arguing that this can solve the problem for a modified form of analytical descriptivism, and for a modified form of SEN too (though perhaps more controversially). I close by considering the appropriateness of using the notions of eligibility and joint-carving in ethics.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-18
Number of pages18
JournalPacific Philosophical Quarterly
Volume94
Issue number1
Early online date1 Oct 2012
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2013

Fingerprint

Ethical Naturalism
Descriptivism
Divergence
Moral Disagreement
Carvings
Appropriateness

Cite this

The Eligibility of Ethical Naturalism. / Edwards, Douglas .

In: Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 94, No. 1, 03.2013, p. 1-18.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Edwards, Douglas . / The Eligibility of Ethical Naturalism. In: Pacific Philosophical Quarterly. 2013 ; Vol. 94, No. 1. pp. 1-18.
@article{4282802d81f5488086a23ce00bde9fd4,
title = "The Eligibility of Ethical Naturalism",
abstract = "Perhaps the two main contemporary formulations of ethical naturalism – Synthetic Ethical Naturalism (SEN) and Analytical Descriptivism – seem to conflict with plausible views about cases where moral debate and disagreement is possible. Both lack safeguards to avoid divergence of reference across different communities, which can scupper the prospects for genuine moral disagreement. I explore the prospects for supplementing both views with Lewis's notion of eligibility, arguing that this can solve the problem for a modified form of analytical descriptivism, and for a modified form of SEN too (though perhaps more controversially). I close by considering the appropriateness of using the notions of eligibility and joint-carving in ethics.",
author = "Douglas Edwards",
year = "2013",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1111/j.1468-0114.2012.01441.x",
language = "English",
volume = "94",
pages = "1--18",
journal = "Pacific Philosophical Quarterly",
issn = "0279-0750",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Eligibility of Ethical Naturalism

AU - Edwards, Douglas

PY - 2013/3

Y1 - 2013/3

N2 - Perhaps the two main contemporary formulations of ethical naturalism – Synthetic Ethical Naturalism (SEN) and Analytical Descriptivism – seem to conflict with plausible views about cases where moral debate and disagreement is possible. Both lack safeguards to avoid divergence of reference across different communities, which can scupper the prospects for genuine moral disagreement. I explore the prospects for supplementing both views with Lewis's notion of eligibility, arguing that this can solve the problem for a modified form of analytical descriptivism, and for a modified form of SEN too (though perhaps more controversially). I close by considering the appropriateness of using the notions of eligibility and joint-carving in ethics.

AB - Perhaps the two main contemporary formulations of ethical naturalism – Synthetic Ethical Naturalism (SEN) and Analytical Descriptivism – seem to conflict with plausible views about cases where moral debate and disagreement is possible. Both lack safeguards to avoid divergence of reference across different communities, which can scupper the prospects for genuine moral disagreement. I explore the prospects for supplementing both views with Lewis's notion of eligibility, arguing that this can solve the problem for a modified form of analytical descriptivism, and for a modified form of SEN too (though perhaps more controversially). I close by considering the appropriateness of using the notions of eligibility and joint-carving in ethics.

U2 - 10.1111/j.1468-0114.2012.01441.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1468-0114.2012.01441.x

M3 - Article

VL - 94

SP - 1

EP - 18

JO - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly

JF - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly

SN - 0279-0750

IS - 1

ER -