ipl-logo

Social Inferentialism And Moral Bridge

608 Words3 Pages

3. Moral Inferentialism: Minimal Moral Inferentialism and Moral Bridge Inferentialism
We’ve seen what McGrath’s perceptual account of moral knowledge consists of. At this point, I want to introduce both general moral inferentialism and the specific moral inferentialist view McGrath targets with her dilemma, moral bridge inferentialism. Broadly speaking, moral inferentialists deny the truth of P3. Most moral inferentialists argue that all of our moral knowledge of particular cases comes from legitimate inferences from known non-moral facts and potentially knowledge of other things to knowledge of a moral fact.
We can divide the family of moral inferentialism, as I’ve described it, into different, distinct moral inferentialist views. Two prominent …show more content…

I will not and do not contest moral supervenience. Rather, I am merely making a remark on the crucial role it plays for moral inferentialism. If moral supervenience were false, it’s hard to make sense of moral inferentialism. Inferring from the non-moral facts to the moral facts requires that the non-moral facts are relevant to the moral facts. If we can change the non-moral facts without changing the moral facts, that is if moral supervenience were false, it becomes difficult to see why and how one could infer from the non-moral facts to the moral facts. An example: if a contemporary statesman acts like Hitler in all relevant non-moral aspects, by committing a second Final Solution and so on, most people agree that, like Hitler, the contemporary statesman is morally wrong. To deny these sort of claims, which is something few would do, is to deny moral …show more content…

By moral bridge inferentialism, I mean the view which states that we infer from known non-moral facts and known moral bridge principles to knowing the corresponding moral fact. In terms of justification, we infer from justified non-moral beliefs and justified beliefs about certain moral bridge principles to justified moral beliefs. To summarize, Minimal moral inferentialism argues that moral inferences are of the form 1. NM (non-moral facts), so 2. M (moral fact). Moral bridge inferentialism argues that moral inferences are of the form 1. NM, 2. If NM, then M (Moral bridge principle from the non-moral facts to the moral fact), so 3. M. Moral bridge inferentialism, as the more plausible of the two moral inferentialist views I’ve surveyed, is the view which McGrath aims her negative argument, what I’ve been calling her dilemma,

Show More
Related
618 Words | 3 Pages

In Julie Beck’s informative article, “This Article Won 't Change Your Mind,” she explores and challenges the phenomenon that belief and choices are often influenced by a person’s moral characteristics and their environment. Beck first uses a short anecdote explaining how people often chooses to only believe the things that they want to believe. If a subject matter is too uncomfortable to discuss, people often become dismissive and choose not to acknowledge the unbearable truth. Beck then continues to pursue her argument by applying reliable studies in order to strengthen the ethicality of her beliefs. She uses sources such as T Leon Festinger’s study and Stanley Schachter’s book, When Prophecy Fails, in order to imbed undeniable facts into

Read More
1596 Words | 7 Pages

The first is that moral judgment is not in the immediate

Read More
690 Words | 3 Pages

Moral reasoning is the act of persuasion urging someone to do something because it is the right thing to do. This is exactly what Chavez does in his article: urging people to use nonviolence as a solution to a problem rather than resorting to violence because it is morally the right thing to do. This aspect is

Read More
1194 Words | 5 Pages

THE 14TH AMENDMENT In this paper, I will be talking about the equal protection of laws clause in 14th amendment interpreted in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson. This paper will focus on the concern over racial injustice in the judgment of Plessy v. Ferguson. Racial injustice is being looked in several aspects i.e. the argument of absolute equality, the objection to inferiority argument, the personal liberty argument and the good faith argument. In the end, I will conclude that the decision of Plessy v. Ferguson is a pernicious decision.

Read More
1376 Words | 6 Pages

The final chapter, chapter 21, of Russ Shafer-Landau’s book, The Fundamentals of Ethics, emphasis is placed on the fact that moral objectivity is not always completely universal but does not mean the idea of moral objectivism has to be rejected. Moral objectivism states that moral standards should be universal but there are some circumstances and exceptions to this claim. Shafer-Landau presents eleven arguments in chapter 21 that some consider challenges to the universality principle of moral objectivity. Not only will moral objectivism be examined in this paper but also another philosophical view known as moral skepticism will be discussed. In addition to the arguments present by Shafter-Landau’s book this paper will include an analysis from

Read More
381 Words | 2 Pages

In his article “Framing Moral Intuitions”, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong sets out to reject moral intuitionalism by questioning whether moral intuitions can be justified non-inferentially. He defines a moral intuition as a strong and immediate belief (Sinnott-Armstrong, 47) and for it to be justified non-inferentially is to be able to justify it independently of any other belief (Sinnott-Armstrong, 48). His primary aim is to demonstrate that many of our moral intuitions are unreliable and consequently, that no moral intuition can be justified without inference. He does this by citing several studies that demonstrate how moral intuitions can be subject to “framing effects”. Framing effects are the effects that wording and context can have on our

Read More
482 Words | 2 Pages

“Gilligan identified the masculine perspective as the justice perspective and contrasted it with the feminine or care perspective” (241). Later in the chapter it talked about dividing moral rights into two different perspectives lead to some people, especially feminist thinking that the division was discrimination. As I continued reading I developed the question in response to the statement, “Since the two perspectives sometimes call for different responses to the same moral question, we thus have the problem of deciding which perspective we should appeal to” (254). If the purpose of ethical theories help use decide what is morally right then how can an ethic that is not clear help us evaluate what to

Read More
1322 Words | 6 Pages

Moral uncertainty and guilt are concepts Miller uses to investigate the contrast between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. Miller’s depiction of character relations unveils the opportunistic nature

Read More
1325 Words | 6 Pages

Caleb Stephens April 15, 2017 Introduction to Philosophy The goal of this paper is to demonstrate that Philippa Foot’s objection, raised to her own argument against utilitarianism, is correct. Her initial thesis is that benevolence, while the foundation of utilitarianism, is an internal end of morality, rather than the ultimate end of morality. The possible objection to this that there must be some overarching reason behind morality, which must imply a form of consequentialism. The response she offers is that there should be some other form of morality, which is a weak argument, as it does not provide an alternate conception of morality itself.

Read More
742 Words | 3 Pages

The moral permissibility of Julie and Mark’s act can also be determined through the moral theories of minimalism and maximalism. According to minimalism, morality is in “our relationships with others and, more precisely, of wrong done to others...and early on, we make a distinction between three different domains, morality, conventions and personal… [in this regard,] only crimes with victims are immoral” (Ogien, 2011, 44, 47). From a minimalism perspective, Julie and Mark’s act was not immoral. Contrastingly, maximalism, states that “some victimless crimes are immoral” (Ogien, 2011, 44).

Read More
224 Words | 1 Pages

In arguing his case, McBryer gives a list of things that many people would consider as opinions but which he believes are moral facts. McBryer fails to consider the fact that an opinion, which is a personal view about an

Read More
562 Words | 3 Pages

While Levy does present a strong argument, not only are there a few flaws with it, but it also undermines human nature. This paper will aim to discredit Levy’s argument by disproving his premise that situationism negates moral responsibility through the psychological and philosophical explanation of moral responsibility and how individuals do not

Read More
405 Words | 2 Pages

His main argument against this idea is that if it is true, it makes morality a useless concept. He backs this statement up when he says “Hemingway may feel good about killing bulls in a bullfight, whereas Saint Francis or Mother Teresa would no doubt feel the opposite. No argument about the matter is possible.”

Read More
1005 Words | 5 Pages

The two moral reasonings are consequentialist and categorical. Consequentialist means the consequences that will result after whatever you do, whether it is the right or wrong thing to do. Categorical moral reasoning locates morality in certain duties and rights. Somethings are just morally wrong even if it brings good outcomes. According to Mill the principle of utility means realizing a consequence of something before you do it,whether your intentions are good or bad.

Read More
929 Words | 4 Pages

Once morality requires justification, it stops being moral and becomes a

Read More

More about Social Inferentialism And Moral Bridge

Related Topics

Open Document