Lexicon of Arguments

Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]


Complaints - Corrections

Table
Concepts
Versus
Sc. Camps
Theses I
Theses II

Concept/Author*  

What is wrong?
Page
Other metadata
Translation
Excerpt or content
Other

Correction: Year / Place / Page
/ /

Correction:
(max 500 charact.)

Your username*
or User-ID

Email address*

The complaint
will not be published.

 
I 83
Moral/Aesthetics/Chalmers: it is often said that there is no conceptual connection between physical properties and moral or aesthetic properties. This does not mean, however, that moral and aesthetic properties are as problematic as conscious experiences.
Cf. >Consciousness/Chalmers, >Experience.
1. Is a possible world conceivable, which is physically indistinguishable from ours, but morally different?
>Conceivability.
2. Are moral facts not phenomena that impose themselves upon us? We can deny them. This is done by moral antirealists such as Blackburn (1971)(1) and Hare (1984) (2).
I 84
Moral/Supervenience/Boyd/Brink/Chalmers: Boyd (1988)(3) and Brink (1989)(4) Thesis: moral facts supervene on natural facts with an a posteriori necessity. That is, they suprvene on the secondary, not the primary, intension of moral concepts. (> Horgan and Timmons, 1992a (5), 1992b (6)).
>Intensions, >Primary intensions,
>Propositions/Chalmers, >Supervenience, >a posteriori necessity.

1. S. Blackburn, Moral realism. IN. J. Casey (Ed) Morality and Moral Reasoning, London 1971.
2. R. M. Hare, Supervenience. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, suppl.58, 1984: pp. 1-16
3. R. N. Boyd, How to be a moral realist. In G. Syre-McCord (Ed), Essays on Moral Realism. Ithaca, NY 1988
4. D. Brink, Moral Realism and the Foundations of Ethics. Cambridge 1989.
5. T. Horgan and M. Timmons, Troubles for new ware moral sentiments; The "open question argument" revived. Philosophical Papers 1992.
6. T. Horgan and M. Timmons, Trouble on moral twin earth: Moral Queerness revived. Synthese 92, 1992: pp. 223-60.

Found an error? Use our Complaint Form. Perhaps someone forgot to close a bracket? A page number is wrong?
Help us to improve our lexicon.
However, if you are of a different opinion, as regards the validity of the argument, post your own argument beside the contested one.
The correction will be sent to the contributor of the original entry to get his opinion about.