Why realists must reject normative quietism

Article
  • 146 Downloads

Abstract

The last two decades have seen a surge of support for normative quietism: most notably, from Dworkin (1996, 2011), Nagel (1996, 1997), Parfit (2011a, b) and Scanlon (1998, 2014). Detractors like Enoch (2011) and McPherson (2011) object that quietism is incompatible with realism about normativity. The resulting debate has stagnated somewhat. In this paper I explore and defend a more promising way of developing that objection: I’ll argue that if normative quietism is true, we can create reasons out of thin air, so normative realists must reject normative quietism.

Keywords

Quietism Realism Reasons Normativity Morality Etiquette 

References

  1. Carnap, R. (1937). The logical syntax of language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  2. Dworkin, R. (1996). Objectivity and truth: You’d better believe it. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 25(2), 87–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dworkin, R. (2011). Justice for hedgehogs. Cambridge: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  4. Enoch, D. (2011). Taking morality seriously: A defense of robust realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Field, H. (1989). Realism, mathematics and modality. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Foot, P. (1972). Morality as a system of hypothetical imperatives. Philosophical Review, 81(3), 305–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  8. Hart, H. L. A. (1994). The concept of law (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  9. Horty, J. (2011). Rules and reasons in the theory of precedent. Legal Theory, 17, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hume, D. (1739). A treatise of human nature (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon. First edition by Selby-Bigge published in 1888.Google Scholar
  11. Joyce, R. (2015). Moral anti-realism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition) (forthcoming). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/moral-anti-realism/.
  12. Ludlow, P. (2008). Cheap contextualism. Philosophical Issues, 18, 104–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Maguire, B. (2014, November 26). First strengths. T.M. Scanlon’s Being Realistic About Reasons. Times Literary Supplement. http://www.barrymaguire.com/uploads/2/3/2/7/23270406/maguire_first_strengths___tls.pdf.
  14. McPherson, T. (2011). Against quietist normative realism. Philosophical Studies, 154, 223–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nagel, T. (1996). The sources of normativity. Chapter Universality and the Reflective Self (pp. 200–209). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Nagel, T. (1997). The last word. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Parfit, D. (2011a). On what matters (Vol. 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Parfit, D. (2011b). On what matters (Vol. 2). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Plunkett, D., & Sundell, T. (2013). Disagreement and the semantics of normative and evaluative terms. Philosophers’ Imprint, 13, 1–37.Google Scholar
  20. Prichard, H. A. (1912). Does moral philosophy rest on a mistake? Mind, 21, 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rosen, G. (1994). Objectivity and modern idealism: What is the question? In M. Michael & J. O’Leary-Hawthorne (Eds.), Philosophy in mind: The place of philosophy in the study of mind. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  22. Saatsi, J. (2014). Inconsistency and scientific realism. Synthese, 191(13), 2941–2955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Scanlon, T. (1998). What we owe to each other. New York: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Scanlon, T. M. (2014). Being realistic about reasons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Southwood, N. (2011). The moral/conventional distinction. Mind, 120, 761–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wedgwood, R. (2015). Book review: Being realistic about reasons. The Philosophical Quarterly, 66, 213–217.Google Scholar
  27. Wright, C. (1992). Truth and objectivity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations