Abstract
The paper outlines a view called ’’social (or two-level) response-dependency‘‘ as an addition to standard alternatives in metaethics that allows for a position intermediate between standard versions of internalism and externalism on the question of motivational force. Instead of taking psychological responses as either directly supplying the content of ethics (as on emotivist or sentimentalist accounts) or as irrelevant to its content (as in classical versions of Kantian or utilitarian ethics), the view allows them an indirect role, as motivational props to moral teaching and thus to the general institution of moral discourse. However, they are not implied by any particular moral judgment (or speaker), so that amoralism comes out as possible. The response that defines the distinctively moral notion of “wrong” on this account is the second-level (social) response of forbidding some behavior; but this is ultimately to be understood in terms of (variable) individual reactions. Natural human emotion tendencies thereby constrain the content of ethics, while allowing for some degree of social variation in moral codes.
Similar content being viewed by others
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Greenspan, P.S. Moral Responses and Moral Theory: Socially-based Externalist Ethics. The Journal of Ethics 2, 103–122 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009727009963
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009727009963