Moral realists maintain that morality has a distinctive subject matter. Specifically, realists maintain that moral discourse is representational, that moral sentences express moral propositions - propositions that attribute moral properties to things. Non-cognitivists, in contrast, maintain that the realist imagery associated with morality is a fiction, a reification of our non-cognitive attitudes. The thought that there is a distinctively moral subject matter is regarded as something to be debunked by philosophical reflection on the way moral discourse mediates and makes public our noncognitive attitudes. The realist fiction might be understood as a philosophical misconception of a discourse that is not fundamentally representational but whose intent is rather practical. There is, however, another way to understand the realist fiction. Perhaps the subject matter of morality is a fiction that stands in no need of debunking, but is rather the means by which our attitudes are conveyed. Perhaps moral sentences express moral propositions, just as the realist maintains, but in accepting a moral sentence competent speakers do not believe the moral proposition expressed but rather adopt the relevant non-cognitive attitudes. Non-cognitivism, in its primary sense, is a claim about moral acceptance: the acceptance of a moral sentence is not moral belief but is some other attitude. Standardly, non-cognitivism has been linked to non-factualism - the claim that the content of a moral sentence does not consist in its expressing a moral proposition. Indeed, the terms 'non-cognitivism' and 'non-factualism' have been used interchangeably. But this misses an important possibility, since moral content may be representational but the acceptance of moral sentences might not be belief in the moral proposition expressed. This possibility constitutes a novel form of non-cognitivism, moral fictionalism. Whereas non-factualists seek to debunk the realist fiction of a moral subject matter, the moral fictionalist claims that that fiction stands in no need of debunking but is the means by which the non-cognitive attitudes involved in moral acceptance are conveyed by moral utterance. Moral fictionalism is non-cognitivism without a non-representational semantics.
發表於2024-11-22
Moral Fictionalism 2024 pdf epub mobi 電子書 下載
圖書標籤: 分析哲學 元倫理學 理論哲學 Metaethics 哲學
3.5,正麵的討論確實比較薄弱,澄清瞭些我關於虛構主義的誤解。嗯,其實它算非認知陣營中比較妥協的一種//第一章駁斥認知主義,關於以moral inquiry為背景對intransigence解釋的兩難。第二章駁斥錶達主義,以及現代的一些nonfactualism,澄清一個有關他們那種極端的語義學理論傾嚮在意義理論上的難題(作者所謂pragmatic fallacy)。第三章錶達存在另一個alternative,即虛構主義。以此正麵立論並勾畫瞭一下理論框架。重點是援引語言行為理論的quasi-assertion(區分sentence itself/utterance-acceptance)並總體上類比(科哲的?)constructive empiricism。最後一章是下麵一些進一步的問題。
評分3.5,正麵的討論確實比較薄弱,澄清瞭些我關於虛構主義的誤解。嗯,其實它算非認知陣營中比較妥協的一種//第一章駁斥認知主義,關於以moral inquiry為背景對intransigence解釋的兩難。第二章駁斥錶達主義,以及現代的一些nonfactualism,澄清一個有關他們那種極端的語義學理論傾嚮在意義理論上的難題(作者所謂pragmatic fallacy)。第三章錶達存在另一個alternative,即虛構主義。以此正麵立論並勾畫瞭一下理論框架。重點是援引語言行為理論的quasi-assertion(區分sentence itself/utterance-acceptance)並總體上類比(科哲的?)constructive empiricism。最後一章是下麵一些進一步的問題。
評分3.5,正麵的討論確實比較薄弱,澄清瞭些我關於虛構主義的誤解。嗯,其實它算非認知陣營中比較妥協的一種//第一章駁斥認知主義,關於以moral inquiry為背景對intransigence解釋的兩難。第二章駁斥錶達主義,以及現代的一些nonfactualism,澄清一個有關他們那種極端的語義學理論傾嚮在意義理論上的難題(作者所謂pragmatic fallacy)。第三章錶達存在另一個alternative,即虛構主義。以此正麵立論並勾畫瞭一下理論框架。重點是援引語言行為理論的quasi-assertion(區分sentence itself/utterance-acceptance)並總體上類比(科哲的?)constructive empiricism。最後一章是下麵一些進一步的問題。
評分作為一個虛構主義者,對何為虛構的討論反而是全書最薄弱的環節
評分3.5,正麵的討論確實比較薄弱,澄清瞭些我關於虛構主義的誤解。嗯,其實它算非認知陣營中比較妥協的一種//第一章駁斥認知主義,關於以moral inquiry為背景對intransigence解釋的兩難。第二章駁斥錶達主義,以及現代的一些nonfactualism,澄清一個有關他們那種極端的語義學理論傾嚮在意義理論上的難題(作者所謂pragmatic fallacy)。第三章錶達存在另一個alternative,即虛構主義。以此正麵立論並勾畫瞭一下理論框架。重點是援引語言行為理論的quasi-assertion(區分sentence itself/utterance-acceptance)並總體上類比(科哲的?)constructive empiricism。最後一章是下麵一些進一步的問題。
Moral Fictionalism 2024 pdf epub mobi 電子書 下載