Skip to main content
Log in

Moral supervenience and distinctness: comments on Dreier

  • Published:
Philosophical Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Jamie Dreier has argued that the supervenience of the moral on the non-moral requires explanation, and that attempts by the non-naturalist to provide it, or to sidestep the issue, have so far failed. These comments on Dreier first examine the notion of distinctness at work in the idea that non-natural properties are distinct from natural ones, pointing out that distinctness cannot be understood in modal terms if supervenience is to be respected. It then suggests that Dreier’s implicit commitment to the existence of infinite Boolean combinations of properties plays a significant role in the challenge to non-naturalism, and that the non-naturalist has some principled reasons for rejecting it. It also suggests that the real problem for non-naturalists isn’t explaining supervenience, but is rather the well-known problem of explaining our capacity to know anything about non-natural properties. That is, if the latter epistemological problem can be solved, the former metaphysical one might well disappear, at least as a distinctive problem for non-naturalist realists about morality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See Wilson (2010), pp. 607–608. See also Stoljar (2007), p. 266.

  2. For discussion, see Enoch (2011), p. 137.

  3. Especially since it is plausible that both of these properties are just the property of being a triangle. See Streumer (2008).

  4. Schroeder (2005) might seem to offer an account on which the reals are reducible, since they can be analyzed in terms of rationals. But he also characterizes analysis in terms of closure, so he is in the same boat as Dreier.

  5. Compare Wilson (2010), p. 627.

  6. See Blackburn (1993), p. 158.

  7. Compare Mabrito (2005), p. 304.

  8. Compare Shafer-Landau (2003), p. 97.

  9. Enoch (2011), p. 150 also notes that pushing on the supervenience worry can raise epistemological worries, but that they are distinct worries.

References

  • Blackburn, S. (1993). Essays in quasi-realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enoch, D. (2011). Taking morality seriously. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzpatrick, W. (2012). Ethical non-naturalism and normative properties. In M. Brady (Ed.), New waves in metaethics (pp. 7–35). London: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mabrito, R. (2005). Does Shafer-Landau have a problem with supervenience? Philosophical Studies, 126(2), 297–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, S. (2018). Moral perception and its rivals. In A. Bergqvist & R. Cowan (Eds.), Evaluative perception (pp. 161–182). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridge, M. (2007). Anti-reductionism and supervenience. Journal of Moral Philosophy, 4(3), 330–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, M. (2005). Realism and reduction: The quest for robustness. Philosophers’ Imprint, 5(1), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shafer-Landau, R. (2003). Moral realism: A defence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stoljar, D. (2007). The consequences of intentionalism. Erkenntnis, 66(1/2), 247–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Streumer, B. (2008). Are there irreducibly normative properties? Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 86(4), 537–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J. (2010). What is Hume’s Dictum, and why believe it? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 80(3), 596–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joshua Gert.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gert, J. Moral supervenience and distinctness: comments on Dreier. Philos Stud 176, 1409–1416 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-019-01245-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-019-01245-9

Keywords

Navigation