Philosophical Studies

, Volume 172, Issue 8, pp 2055–2072

A hard look at moral perception

Article

Abstract

This paper concerns what I take to be the primary epistemological motivation for defending moral perception. Offering a plausible account of how we gain moral knowledge is one of the central challenges of metaethics. It seems moral perception might help us meet this challenge. The possibility that we know about the instantiation of moral properties in something like the way we know that there is a bus passing in front of us raises the alluring prospect of subsuming moral epistemology under the (relatively) comfortable umbrella of perceptual or, more broadly, empirical knowledge. The good news on this front is that various combinations of metaethical positions and theories of perception arguably have the potential to vindicate moral perception (though I won’t do much to defend this claim here). The bad news, I’ll argue, is that moral perception would be dependent for its epistemic merit on background knowledge of bridge principles linking moral and non-moral properties. Thus, in order to defend a purely perceptual moral epistemology, one would have to argue that knowledge of those principles is likewise perceptual. I further argue it is not.

Keywords

Metaethics Moral epistemology Moral perception Cognitive penetration 

References

  1. Audi, R. (2013). Moral perception. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blair, R. J. R. (2007). Empathic dysfunction in psychopathic individuals. Empathy in mental illness (pp. 3–16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Blum, L. A. (1994). Moral perception and particularity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonjour, L. (1980). Externalist theories of empirical knowledge. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 5(1), 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chappell, T. (2008). Moral perception. Philosophy, 83(4), 421–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cowan, R. (2013). Perceptual intuitionism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. doi:10.1111/phpr.12023.
  7. Cullison, A. (2010). Moral perception. European Journal of Philosophy, 18(2), 159–175. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0378.2009.00343.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cuneo, T. (2003). Reidian moral perception. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 33(2), 229–258.Google Scholar
  9. DePaul, M. R. (1993). Balance and refinement: beyond coherence methods of moral inquiry. Colchester: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  10. Gordon, R. M. (2009, Fall). Folk psychology as mental simulation. In E.N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/folkpsych-simulation/.
  11. Greco, J. (2000). Putting skeptics in their place: The nature of skeptical arguments and their role in philosophical inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hare, R. M. (1952). The language of morals. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  13. Harman, G. (1977). The nature of morality: An introduction to ethics. Cary, NC: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Harman, G. (1986). Moral explanations of natural facts—Can moral claims be tested against moral reality? The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 24(S1), 57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Horgan, T., & Timmons, M. (1991). New wave moral realism meets moral twin earth. Journal of Philosophical Research, 16, 447–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McBrayer, J. P. (2010a). A limited defense of moral perception. Philosophical Studies, 149(3), 305–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McBrayer, J. P. (2010b). Moral perception and the causal objection. Ratio, 23(3), 291–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McGrath, S. (2004). Moral knowledge by perception. Philosophical Perspectives, 18(1), 209–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McNaughton, D. (1988). Moral vision: An introduction to ethics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  20. Moore, G. E. (1903). Principia ethica. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Oddie, G. (2009). Value, reality, and desire. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Putnam, H. (1975). The meaning of ‘meaning’. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 7, 131–193.Google Scholar
  23. Sayre-McCord, G. (1996). Coherentist epistemology and moral theory. In W. Sinnott-Armstrong & M. Timmons (Eds.), Moral knowledge? New readings in moral epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Shafer-Landau, R. (2005). Moral realism: A defence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Siegel, S. (2011). The contents of visual experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Slutsky, D. (2001). Causally inefficacious moral properties. Southern Journal of Philosophy, 39(4), 595–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sturgeon, N. (1986). Harman on moral explanations of natural facts. Southern Journal of Philosophy, 24(S1), 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Väyrynen, P. (2013). The lewd, the rude and the nasty: A study of thick concepts in ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Watkins, M., & Jolley, K. D. (2002). Pollyanna realism: Moral perception and moral properties. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 80(1), 75–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Werner, P. (forthcoming). Moral perception and the contents of experience. Journal of Moral Philosophy.Google Scholar
  31. Williamson, T. (2002). Knowledge and its limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Väyrynen, P. unpublished manuscript. Doubts about moral perception. http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~phlpv/papers/moralperception.pdf.
  33. Zangwill, N. (2006). Moral epistemology and the because constraint. In J. Dreier (Ed.), Contemporary debates in moral theory (pp. 263–281). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UNC Chapel HillChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations