Metaethical Mooreanism is the view that without being able to explain how we know certain moral claims we can nevertheless be sure that we do know them. In this paper I focus on the Moorean argument against moral error theory. I conclude that it fails. To show this failure, I first distinguish Moorean claims from Moorean arguments, and then so-called presumptive support from dialogical support. With these distinctions in place, I argue that the key Moorean claim requires dialogical support in (...) order to be used within the Moorean argument against moral error theory, but metaethical Mooreans have only provided presumptive support for the Moorean claim. Not only is this presumptive support inadequate for fending off the moral error theory, it is doubtful that Mooreans can actually provide dialogical support for the key Moorean claim. (shrink)

After a brief outline of Enoch’s defense of robust realism in his Taking Morality Seriously, I focus on Enoch’s taking-morality-seriously thought by making explicit the assumptions I see involved in it. Enoch’s argument from impartiality is then reconstructed to show how these assumptions are at work. Next, I explain the reasons why Enoch does not succeed in converting these assumptions into a positive argument for the thesis implied by robust realism that there is a moral objectivity. Finally, I conclude that (...) the critical analysis provided casts a shadow on the reliability of the taking-morality-seriously thought as a basis of a theoretical inquiry into the nature of morality. (shrink)

Debunking arguments aim at defeating the justification of a belief by revealing the belief to have a dubious genealogy. One prominent example of such a debunking argument is Richard Joyce’s evolutionary debunking explanation of morality. Joyce’s argument targets only our belief in moral facts, while our belief in prudential facts is exempt from his evolutionary critique. In this paper, I suggest that our belief in prudential facts falls victim to evolutionary debunking, too. Just as our moral sense can be explained (...) in evolutionary terms, so presumably can our tendency to judge our actions in prudential terms. And if the evolutionary explanation of our moral sense has an undermining effect, then so does the evolutionary explanation of our belief in prudential facts. This also undermines moral fictionalism, the view that we have prudential reasons to maintain moral discourse as a fiction. I consider and refute four possible objections to the suggested debunking of our belief in prudential normativity. (shrink)

David Enoch has recently proposed that the deliberative indispensability of irreducibly normative facts suffices to support their inclusion in our ontology, even if they are not necessary for the explanation of any observable phenomena. He challenges dissenters to point to a relevant asymmetry between explanation and deliberation that shows why explanatory indispensability, but not deliberative indispensability, is a legitimate guide to ontology. In this paper, I aim to do just that. Given that an entity figures in the actual explanation of (...) some phenomenon, it is not an open question whether that entity exists. Thus, if you can manage to find actual explanations, you can find answers to ontological questions. In contrast, even if some entity is indispensable to deliberation, it still might not exist. For example, even if some form of libertarian free will is deliberatively indispensable, we still might not have libertarian free will. So even if you manage to discover the indispensable commitments of deliberation, there is still more work to do to get to the bottom of things. That additional work is explanatory work, and so deliberative indispensability is not an independent guide to what there is. (shrink)

Normativni teoretičari pogreške nastoje braniti teoriju pogreške koja kaže da normativni sudovi pripisuju normativna svojstva, a takva svojstva, uključujući razloge za vjerovanje, nikada nisu instancirana. Mnogi filozofi su iznijeli prigovore obrani teorije koja podrazumijeva da ne možemo imati razloga vjerovati u nju. Spencer Case prigovara da teoretičari pogreške jednostavno ne mogu izbjeći samopobijanje. S druge strane, Bart Streumer tvrdi da ne možemo vjerovati u normativnu teoriju pogreške, ali da to, pomalo iznenađujuće, pomaže njenim zagovornicima da je obrane od ovih prigovora. (...) Smatram da, ako je Streumerov argument uspješan, on omogućuje teoretičarima pogreške izbjegavanje Caseovog prigovora o samopobijanju. Međutim, nadograđujem i poboljšavam Caseov argument kako bih pokazao da nikada ne bismo mogli uspješno obraniti normativnu teoriju pogreške, bez obzira na to možemo li vjerovati u nju ili ne. Dakle, samopobijanje ostaje. Rad zaključujem nudeći neke razloge za mišljenje da naša nesposobnost da obranimo normativnu teoriju pogreške znači da bismo je trebali odbaciti, što bi posljedično značilo da je ona neistinita. (shrink)