Explaining Moral Knowledge

In this paper I assess the viability of a particularist explanation of moral knowledge. First, I consider two arguments by Sean McKeever and Michael Ridge that purport to show that a generalist, principle-based explanation of practical wisdom—understood as the ability to acquire moral knowledge in a...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:  
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Leibowitz, Uri D. (Autor)
Tipo de documento: Electrónico Artículo
Lenguaje:Inglés
Verificar disponibilidad: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Gargar...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Publicado: Brill 2014
En: Journal of moral philosophy
Año: 2014, Volumen: 11, Número: 1, Páginas: 35-56
Otras palabras clave:B Moral Knowledge
B Principles
B Particularism
B generalism
B moral epistemology
Acceso en línea: Volltext (kostenfrei)
Volltext (kostenfrei)
Descripción
Sumario:In this paper I assess the viability of a particularist explanation of moral knowledge. First, I consider two arguments by Sean McKeever and Michael Ridge that purport to show that a generalist, principle-based explanation of practical wisdom—understood as the ability to acquire moral knowledge in a wide range of situations—is superior to a particularist, non-principle-based account. I contend that both arguments are unsuccessful. Then, I propose a particularist-friendly explanation of knowledge of particular moral facts. I argue that when we are careful to keep separate the various explanatory tasks at hand we can see that a particularist-friendly explanation of the fact that (e.g.,) Jane knows that A is morally right might not be so difficult to come by. Moreover, I suggest that a particularist approach to explaining knowledge of particular moral facts may go some way towards discharging the challenge of moral scepticism.
ISSN:1745-5243
Obras secundarias:Enthalten in: Journal of moral philosophy
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1163/17455243-4681012