Advertisement

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 209–214 | Cite as

Critical Discussion of David Velleman, Foundations for Moral Relativism, UK: Open Book Publishers, 2013. Pp. x +109. Price: £12.95.

  • Christos Kyriacou
Article
  • 233 Downloads

Foundations for Moral Relativism consists of five self-standing, though loosely related, essays on the nature of agency and its metaethical foundations. The essays do not aspire to offer any grand theory of agency or metaethics, but only to lay out some of the foundations for such theories. These foundations portray how agency in general is constructed in the social context of a community, how moral agency in particular is constructed in the social context of a community, and how a derivative relativist account of morality can be not only intellectually respectable but also plausible. In paving the way for moral relativism, Velleman clarifies popular confusions about relativism, responds to a number of traditional objections and sketches a sophisticated version of moral relativism that is meant to improve on more simplistic versions.

There is much to praise in these thought provoking essays and they are highly recommended to anyone working on agency and metaethics. They are lucid,...

References

  1. Blackburn S (2006) Truth. Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Boghossian P (2007) Fear of knowledge. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Cuneo T (2007) The normative web. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cuneo Terence and Kyriacou Christos. ‘In Defense of the Moral\Epistemic Parity’. (MS)Google Scholar
  5. Enoch D (2013) Taking morality seriously. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Midgley M (2008) Trying out one’s new sword. In: Joel F, Shafer-Landau R (eds) Reason and responsibility. Thomson Wadsworth, Belmont, pp 567–570Google Scholar
  7. Sharon S (2006) A Darwinian dilemma for realist theories of value’. Philos Stud 127(1):109–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Wedgwood R (2007) The nature of normativity. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Edinburgh/CyprusEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations