How may we try to answer the central question of ethics, the question how one should live? Understood as concerning the good lives of rational agents qua rational, the question concerns the standards of practical reason. How may we vindicate a view about those standards—an ethical view , for short?
This dissertation examines whether it is possible to vindicate an ethical view without begging any first-order normative questions against skeptics in the process. I argue that it is not. If there are sound arguments for ethical views, they must rely on premises that, while true, beg some first-order normative question against a possible skeptic. I call this thesis the autonomy of ethics. The result is that sound ethical argumentation is disturbingly partisan: sound arguments in ethics cannot be seen to be sound by anyone who does not already share the right first-order view to at least some extent.
I argue for the autonomy of ethics by examining attempts to avoid it. Constitutivism seeks to ground ethics in the metaphysics of agency. Metasemantic strategies seek to ground ethics in the conditions of concept-possession, and in the implicit normative commitments that such conditions purportedly involve. Closely related metapragmatic strategies seek to ground ethics in the conditions of using concepts in judgments or in reasoning. Against each strategy, I argue that the relevant conditions—the conditions of agency, of concept-possession, and of concept use—are normatively neutral. I further argue that, given the failure of these strategies, there is no further way to avoid the autonomy of ethics. The only possible sound arguments in favor of ethical views are ethically partisan in the way outlined.
One way of putting this conclusion is that there is no purely metaethical way of vindicating any ethical view. If there can nonetheless be objective truths in ethics, their possibility cannot depend on their having a purely metaethical grounding.
|School:||University of Pittsburgh|
|School Location:||United States -- Pennsylvania|
|Source:||DAI-A 73/03, Dissertation Abstracts International|
|Keywords:||Autonomy, Ethics, Practical reasoning, Skepticism|
Copyright in each Dissertation and Thesis is retained by the author. All Rights Reserved
The supplemental file or files you are about to download were provided to ProQuest by the author as part of a
dissertation or thesis. The supplemental files are provided "AS IS" without warranty. ProQuest is not responsible for the
content, format or impact on the supplemental file(s) on our system. in some cases, the file type may be unknown or
may be a .exe file. We recommend caution as you open such files.
Copyright of the original materials contained in the supplemental file is retained by the author and your access to the
supplemental files is subject to the ProQuest Terms and Conditions of use.
Depending on the size of the file(s) you are downloading, the system may take some time to download them. Please be