Rationalist Realism and Constructivist Accounts of Morality

Philosophical Studies, 2005

I will try to show that there exists an initiatory theological-philosophical tradition, the acknowledgement of which entails a set of considerations that I believe can shed light on

2004

The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 1986

1 have two purposes for this paper: first, to identify the substantive differences between certain theories of moral realism and my own theory of morality as social creation; and second, to sketch some ways of arriving at a decision between the two kinds of theory on the points where they differ. The theories of moral realism I have in mind are based 1. There are facts that obtain independently of human cognitive capacities and conceptual schemes.

Philosophy Compass, 2007

This article explains for a general philosophical audience the central issues and strategies in the contemporary moral realism debate. It critically surveys the contribution of some recent scholarship, representing expressivist and pragmatist nondescriptivism (Mark Timmons, Hilary Putnam), subjectivist and nonsubjectivist naturalism (Michael Smith, Paul Bloomfield, Philippa Foot), nonnaturalism (Russ Shafer-Landau, T. M. Scanlon) and error theory (Richard Joyce). Four different faces of 'moral realism' are distinguished: semantic, ontological, metaphysical and normative. The debate is presented as taking shape under dialectical pressure from the demands of (i) capturing the moral appearances; and (ii) reconciling morality with our understanding of the mind and world.

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 1999

The realist belief in robustly attitude-independent evaluative truths – more specifically, moral truths – is challenged by Sharon Street’s essay “A Darwinian Dilemma for Realist Theories of Value”. We know the content of human normative beliefs and attitudes has been profoundly influenced by a Darwinian natural selection process that favors adaptivity. But if simple adaptivity can explain the content of our evaluative beliefs, any connection they might have with abstract moral truth would seem to be purely coincidental. She continues the skeptical attack in “Objectivity and Truth: You’d Better Rethink It”, concentrating on the intuitionist realism of Ronald Dworkin. The latter sees the issue fundamentally as a holistic choice between moral objectivity and the genocide-countenancing consequences of abandoning objective standards. Street counters that, because of realism’s skeptical difficulties, Dworkin’s Choice (as I call it) actually works in favor of her Euthyphronic antirealism. I will argue that she misrepresents the realist’s skeptical challenge, and that clarifying the character of that challenge renders the case for normative realism much more appealing. Indeed, I claim that Street fails to exclude the genuine possibility of a rational basis for moral truth.

Australasian Philosophical Review, 2024

Moral realism, as a metaethical theory, arises from philosophical reflections on one of the most fundamental issues, if not the most fundamental one, of normative ethics: objectivity of moral properties or facts. Until recently, normative ethical theories dominating modern Western philosophical discourse have been consequentialism and deontology, both of which are primarily concerned about moral properties of rightness and wrongness of actions. Understandably, thus, moral realism has been also action-focused, aiming to show the objectivity of these moral properties, and classical criticisms of moral realism have been, also understandably, largely directed to this action-focused moral realism. However, in the last a few decades, virtue ethics as a normative theory, which is primarily concerned with the goodness and badness of human persons, has experienced an impressive revival and become a powerful rival to deontology and consequentialism. Unfortunately, however, most of our metaethical discussions, including the debate between moral realism and anti-realism, are lagging behind, failing to reflect this fundamental shift of the scene in normative ethics. It is in this context, as a virtual ethicist in normative ethics, someone who thinks that virtue ethics is a more plausible normative theory, that I’m motivated to develop an agent-focused moral realism, reflecting on issues arising from virtue ethics, to argue for the objectivity of moral properties of goodness and badness of persons, heavily drawing on, indeed mostly explicating, the view of the neo-Confucian philosopher Zhu Xi. As it is a novel approach, of course, I expect and indeed welcome criticisms from my fellow meta-ethicists who are commenting on my paper, to whom I’m most grateful and to whose comments I am most happy to make the following responses.

1998

Journal of Moral Philosophy, 2017