Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T03:45:49.359Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Necessary Moral Principles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 December 2015

RICHARD SWINBURNE
RICHARD SWINBURNE*
Affiliation:
UNIVERSITY OF OXFORDrichard.swinburne@oriel.ox.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Moral realism entails that there are metaphysically necessary moral principles of the form ‘all actions of nonmoral kind Z are morally good’; being discoverable a priori, these must be (in a wide sense) logically necessary. This article seeks to justify this apparently puzzling consequence. A sentence expresses a logically necessary proposition iff its negation entails a contradiction. The method of reflective equilibrium assumes that the simplest account of the apparently correct use of sentences of some type in paradigm examples is probably logically necessary. An account is simple insofar as it uses few predicates designating properties easily recognizable in many different kinds of paradigm examples. I illustrate how reflective equilibrium uses these criteria to discover logically necessary nonmoral propositions such as ‘if S remembers doing X, S believes that he did X’ and ‘if it is scarlet, it is red’. I then illustrate how exactly the same procedures can lead us from paradigm examples of apparently true sentences asserting that actions of some kind are good to discovering moral principles. I advance the contingent hypothesis that most contemporary humans, although they initially disagree about moral issues, have derived from different paradigm examples the same concept of moral goodness, which will ensure that the use of reflective equilibrium will lead to eventual agreement about moral issues. That strongly suggests that the moral principles eventually reached by reflective equilibrium are logically necessary ones.

Keywords

reflective equilibriummoral realismlogical necessityethicsmetaethics
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the American Philosophical Association , Volume 1 , Issue 4 , Winter 2015 , pp. 617 - 634
Copyright
Copyright © American Philosophical Association 2015 

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.)

References

Blackburn, S. (1993) ‘Supervenience Revisited’. In Essays in Quasi-Realism (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 130–48.Google Scholar
Bonjour, L. (1999) ‘Article on “A priori”’. In Audi, R. (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2d ed. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press), 35.Google Scholar
Boyd, Richard. (1988) ‘How to be a Moral Realist’. In Sayre-McCord, G. (ed.), Essays on Moral Realism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press), 181–228.Google Scholar
Brink, David. (1989) Moral Realism and the Foundations of Ethics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chalmers, David. (2002) ‘Does Conceivability Entail Possibility?’ In Gendler, T. S. and Hawthorne, J. (eds.), Conceivability and Possibility (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 145–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuneo, Terence. (2007) The Normative Web. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dancy, Jonathan. (2004) Ethics Without Principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fine, Kit. (2002) ‘The Varieties of Necessity’. In Gendler, T. S. and Hawthorne, J. (eds.), Conceivability and Possibility (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 253–81.Google Scholar
Horgan, Terence, and Timmons, Mark. (1992) ‘Troubles on Moral Twin Earth: Moral Queerness Revised’. Synthese, 92, 221–60.Google Scholar
Hume, David. (1888) A Treatise of Human Nature. Edited by Selby-Bigge, L. A.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kim, Jaegwon. (1993) ‘“Strong” and “Global” Supervenience Revisited’. In Supervenience and Mind (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press), 79–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kripke, Saul. (1980) Naming and Necessity. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mackie, J. L. (1977) Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Martin, C. B., and Deutscher, Max. (1966) ‘Remembering’. Philosophical Review, 75, 161–96.Google Scholar
Parfit, Derek. (2011) On What Matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary. (1975) ‘The Meaning of “Meaning”’. In Mind, Language and Reality: Philosophical Papers, vol. 2 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press), 215–71.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. (1999) A Theory of Justice. Rev. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scanlon, Thomas M. (2002) ‘Rawls on Justification’. In Freeman, S. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press), 139–67.Google Scholar
Shafer-Landau, Russ. (2003) Moral Realism: A Defence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Michael. (1994) The Moral Problem. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Swinburne, Richard. (2013) Mind, Brain, and Free Will. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wedgwood, Ralph. (2007) The Nature of Normality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yablo, Stephen. (1993) ‘Is Conceivability a Guide to Possibility?’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 53, 1–14.Google Scholar