Hostname: page-component-669899f699-2mbcq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-27T15:46:42.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How to Have Your Quasi-Cake and Quasi-Eat It Too

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2021

Sebastian Köhler Open the ORCID record for Sebastian Köhler [Opens in a new window]
Sebastian Köhler*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy & Law, Frankfurt School of Finance & Management, Frankfurt, Germany
*
Email: s.koehler@fs.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Quasi-realism prominently figures in the expressivist research program. However, many complain that it has become increasingly unclear what exactly quasi-realism involves. This paper offers clarification. It argues that we need to distinguish two distinctive views that might be and have been pursued under the label “quasi-realism”: conciliatory expressivism and quasi-realism properly so-called. Of these, only conciliatory expressivism is a genuinely meta-ethical project, while quasi-realism is a first-order normative view. This paper demonstrates the fruitfulness of these clarifications by using them to address Terence Cuneo’s recent challenge that quasi-realist expressivists lack the resources to plausibly accommodate certain sorts of data points.

Keywords

Meta-ethical expressivismquasi-realism
Type
Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , April 2021 , pp. 204 - 220
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Canadian Journal of Philosophy

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Baker, Derek. 2021. “If You’re Quasi-Explaining, You’re Quasi-Losing.” In Oxford Studies in Metaethics 16, edited by Shafer-Landau, Russ. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Beddor, Bob. 2020a. “A Solution to the Many Attitudes Problem.” Philosophical Studies 177 (9): 2789–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beddor, Bob. 2020b. “Fallibility for Expressivists.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 98 (4): 763–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048402.2019.1699586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bengson, J., Cuneo, Terence, and Shafer-Landau, Russ. 2020. “Methods, Goals, and Data in Metaethics.” In The Routledge Companion to Moral Epistemology, edited by Zimmermann, Aaron, Jones, Karen, and Timmons, Mark. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Berker, Selim. 2020. “Quasi-Dependence.” In Oxford Studies in Metaethics 15, edited by Shafer-Landau, Russ. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bex-Priestley, Graham. 2018. “Error and the Limits of Quasi-Realism.” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 21 (5): 1051–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackburn, Simon. 1984. Spreading the Word. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blackburn, Simon. 1993. Essays in Quasi-Realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blackburn, Simon. 1998. Ruling Passions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blackburn, Simon. 2009. “Truth and a priori Possibility: Egan’s Charge against Quasi-Realism.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87 (August 2013): 201–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuneo, Terence. 2020. “Can Expressivism Have It All?” Philosophical Studies 177: 219–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. 2011. Justice for Hedgehogs. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egan, Andy. 2007. “Quasi-Realism and Fundamental Moral Error.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 85 (August 2013): 205–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enoch, David. 2009. “Wouldn’t It Be Nice If p, Therefore, p (for a Moral p).” Utilitas 21: 222–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enoch, David. 2011. Taking Morality Seriously. A Defense of Robust Realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbard, Allan. 1992. Wise Choices, Apt Feelings. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbard, Allan. 2003. Thinking How to Live. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Horwich, Paul. 1998. Truth. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Köhler, Sebastian. 2014. “Expressivism and Mind-Dependence: Distinct Existences.” Journal of Moral Philosophy 11 (6). https://doi.org/10.1163/17455243-4681039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Köhler, Sebastian. 2015. “What Is the Problem with Fundamental Moral Error?” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 93 (1). https://doi.org/10.1080/00048402.2014.928736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, Matthew. 2009. Moral Realism as a Moral Doctrine. London: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, Matthew. 2017. “There’s Nothing Quasi about Quasi-Realism: Moral Realism as a Moral Doctrine.” Journal of Ethics 21: 185–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenman, James. 2003. “Disciplined Syntacticism and Moral Expressivism.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66 (1): 32–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenman, James. 2007. “Expressivism and Epistemology: What Is Moral Inquiry?” Aristotelian Society 81 (supp. vol.): 63–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPherson, Tristram. 2021. “Expressivism without Minimalism.” In Meaning, Decision, and Norms: Themes from the Work of Allan Gibbard, edited by Dunaway, Billy and Plunkett, David. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Maize Books.Google Scholar
Nagel, Thomas. 1986. The View from Nowhere. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Preston-Roedder, Ryan. 2014. “A Better World.” Philosophical Studies 168 (3): 629–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-013-0154-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridge, Michael. 2007. “Expressivism and Epistemology: Epistemology for Ecumenical Expressivists.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 81 (suppl. vol.): 83–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridge, Michael. 2014. Impassioned Belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridge, Michael. 2015. “I Might Be Fundamentally Mistaken.” Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 9 (3).Google Scholar
Ridge, Michael. 2018. “How to Be an Epistemic Expressivist.” In Metaepistemology, edited by McHugh, Conor, Way, Jonathan, and Whiting, Daniel, 141–58. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sayre-McCord, Geoffrey. 2021. “On a Theory of a Better Moral Theory and a Better Theory of Morality.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Scanlon, Thomas M. 2014. Being Realistic about Reasons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, Neil. 2006. “The Moral Belief Problem.” Ratio 19 (June): 249–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, Neil. 2008. “Free Thinking for Expressivists.” Philosophical Papers 37: 263–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, Neil. 2018. “Beliefs Pills and the Possibility of Moral Epistemology.” In Oxford Studies in Metaethics 13, edited by Shafer-Landau, Russ. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smyth, Nicholas. 2014. “Resolute Expressivism.” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 17 (4): 607–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-014-9495-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiefensee, Christine. 2019. “Relaxing about Moral Truths.” Ergo 6 (31): 869–90. https://doi.org/10.3998/ergo.12405314.0006.031.Google Scholar
Tiefensee, Christine. 2021. “Metasemantics for the Relaxed.” In Oxford Studies in Metaethics 16, edited by Shafer-Landau, Russ. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar