Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Problems with Searle’s Derivation?Edmund Wall - 2011 - Philosophia 39 (3):571-580.
    In his paper, How to Derive ‘Ought’ From ‘Is,’ John R. Searle made a valiant attempt to derive an ought-statement from purely descriptive statements. In a recent issue of Philosophia, Scott Hill has offered criticisms of that proposed derivation. I argue that Hill has not established any errors in Searle's proposed derivation.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Anti-Autonomism Defended: A Reply to Hill.Stephen Maitzen - 2008 - Philosophia 36 (4):567-574.
    In the current issue of this journal, Scott Hill critiques some of my work on the “is”-“ought” controversy, the Hume-inspired debate over whether an ethical conclusion can be soundly, or even validly, derived from only non-ethical premises. I’ve argued that it can be; Hill is unconvinced. I reply to Hill’s critique, focusing on four key questions to which he and I give different answers.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Methodological Challenges for Empirical Approaches to Ethics.Christopher Shirreff - 2019 - Dissertation, University of Western Ontario
    The central question for this dissertation is, how do we do moral philosophy well from within a broadly naturalist framework? Its main goal is to lay the groundwork for a methodological approach to moral philosophy that integrates traditional, intuition-driven approaches to ethics with empirical approaches that employ empirical data from biology and cognitive science. Specifically, it explores what restrictions are placed on our moral theorizing by findings in evolutionary biology, psychology, neuroscience, and other fields, and how we can integrate this (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Good News for the Logical Autonomy of Ethics.Scott Hill - 2009 - Argumentation 23 (2):277-283.
    Toomas Karmo claims that his taxonomy of ethical sentences has the result that there does not exist a sound argument with all non-ethical premises and an ethical conclusion. In a recent paper, Mark T. Nelson argues against this claim. Nelson presents a sound argument that he takes to be such that (i) Karmo’s taxonomy classifies that argument’s single premise as non-ethical and (ii) Karmo’s taxonomy classifies that argument’s conclusion as ethical. I attempt to show that Nelson is mistaken about (ii). (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Developing a Post-Prior Taxonomy of Ethical Sentences.Patrick Clipsham - 2015 - Philosophia 43 (3):801-820.
    The main guiding assumption of this paper is that there is need for a taxonomy of ethical sentences that does not overgenerate, yet can make useful contributions to debates about certain controversial sentences . After surveying the recent literature and concluding that no extant taxonomy that satisfies both of these conditions is available to us, I propose and explain a novel taxonomy which does satisfy them. I then defend my proposal from five potential objections.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark