Advertisement

Moore’s Paradox and Moral Motivation

  • Michael Cholbi
Article

Abstract

Assertions of statements such as ‘it’s raining, but I don’t believe it’ are standard examples of what is known as Moore’s paradox. Here I consider moral equivalents of such statements, statements wherein individuals affirm moral judgments while also expressing motivational indifference to those judgments (such as ‘hurting animals for fun is wrong, but I don’t care’). I argue for four main conclusions concerning such statements: 1. Such statements are genuinely paradoxical, even if not contradictory. 2. This paradoxicality can be traced to a form of epistemic self-defeat that also explains the paradoxicality of ordinary Moore-paradoxical statements. 3. Although a simple form of internalism about moral judgment and motivation can explain the paradoxicality of these moral equivalents, a more plausible explanation can be provided that does not rely on this simple form of internalism. 4. The paradoxicality of such statements suggests a more credible understanding of the thesis that those who are not motivated by their moral judgments are irrational.

Keywords

Motivation Moore’s paradox Akrasia Moral judgment 

References

  1. Adler JE (2002) Belief’s own ethics. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Brink D (1989) Moral realism and the foundations of ethics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Broome J (2008) Is rationality normative. Disputatio 11:153–171Google Scholar
  4. Clark M (2007) Paradoxes from A to Z. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Dancy J (2000) Practical reality. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Darwall S (2003) Desires, reasons, and causes. Philos Phenomenol Res 67:436–443. doi: 10.1111/j.1933-1592.2003.tb00300.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. de Almeida C (2001) What Moore’s paradox is about. Philos Phenomenol Res 62:33–58. doi: 10.2307/2653588 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dreier J (1990) Internalism and speaker relativism. Ethics 101:6–26. doi: 10.1086/293257 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Finlay S (2004) The conversational practicality of value judgment. J Ethics 8:205–223. doi: 10.1023/B:JOET.0000031064.73238.8f CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Green MS, Williams J (2007) Moore’s paradox: New essays on belief, rationality, and the first erson. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Heal J (1994) Moore’s paradox: A Wittgsteinian approach. Mind 103:5–24. doi: 10.1093/mind/103.409.5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Korsgaard C (1986) Skepticism about practical reason. J Philos 83:5–25. doi: 10.2307/2026464 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kriegel U (2004) Moore’s paradox and the structure of conscious belief. Erkenntnis 61:99–121. doi: 10.1023/B:ERKE.0000037548.06150.b6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Moran R (1997) Self-knowledge: Discovery, resolution, undoing. Eur J Philos 5:141–161. doi: 10.1111/1468-0378.00033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nichols S (2004) Sentimental rules. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Owens D (2002) Epistemic akrasia. Monist 85:381–397Google Scholar
  17. Pettit P, Smith M (1996) Freedom in belief and desire. J Philos 93:429–449. doi: 10.2307/2940892 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Quine WV (1976) Ways of paradox and other essays. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Railton P (2006) Moral factualism. In: Dreier J (ed) Contemporary debates in moral theory. Blackwell, Malden, pp 201–219Google Scholar
  20. Rescher N (2001) Paradoxes: Their roots, range, and resolution. Open Court, PeruGoogle Scholar
  21. Sainsbury RM (1995) Paradoxes. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Shafer-Landau R (2003) Moral realism: A defense. Clarendon Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Shoemaker S (1994) Moore’s paradox and self-knowledge. Philos Stud 77:211–228. doi: 10.1007/BF00989570 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Smilansky S (2007) 10 moral paradoxes. Blackwell, MaldenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Smith M (1994) The moral problem. Blackwell, MaldenGoogle Scholar
  26. Sorensen R (1988) Blindspots. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. Wallace RJ (2001) Comment on Svavarsdottir, ‘Moral cognitivism and motivation.’ In: Brown Electronic Article Review Service. Department of Philosophy, Brown University. http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Philosophy/bears/0107wall.html. Accessed 13 April 2008
  28. Williams J (1998) Wittgensteinian accounts of Moorean absurdity. Philos Stud 92:283–306. doi: 10.1023/A:1004260008644 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zangwill N (2008) The indifference argument. Philos Stud 138:19–124. doi: 10.1007/s11098-006-9000-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.California State Polytechnic UniversityPomonaUSA

Personalised recommendations