Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Normative authority for empirical science.Wim de Muijnck - 2011 - Philosophical Explorations 14 (3):263-275.
    In this article I explore the hypothesis of normative authority by epistemic authority. This is the idea that scientifically warranted claims in psychology, in being claims about human needs, interests, and concerns, can acquire authority on which values do or do not merit endorsement. The hypothesis is applied to attachment research: it seems that on the basis of what is now known about attachment, specific normative conclusions seem warranted. I argue that although attachment research and theory are value-laden, they are (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Principia Then and Now.Robert Shaver - 2003 - Utilitas 15 (3):261.
    Moore is taken to have followed Sidgwick in his arguments against naturalism and in his consequentialism. I argue that there are differences on both issues. Sidgwick's arguments against naturalism do not rely on a controversial view of analysis, and one of his arguments for consequentialism gives him greater resources against critics of consequentialism such as T. M. Scanlon.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Why Not Moral Realism?1.Ruth Anna Putnam - 2008 - International Journal of Philosophical Studies 16 (1):17-29.
    This paper argues for the view that moral realism is irrelevant to ethics. It recalls Aristotle's claim that the Platonic Form of the Good is irrelevant because it is not the sort of thing we can desire or pursue. Moore's account of ethics in relation to conduct and of the Ideal is woefully inadequate as a morality to live by. Peter Railton's moral realism also involves a very weak first-order moral theory. These failures are due, I claim, to the fact (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • A very good reason to reject the buck-passing account.Alex Gregory - 2014 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 92 (2):287-303.
    This paper presents a new objection to the buck-passing account of value. I distinguish the buck-passing account of predicative value from the buck-passing account of attributive value. According to the latter, facts about attributive value reduce to facts about reasons and their weights. But since facts about reasons’ weights are themselves facts about attributive value, this account presupposes what it is supposed to explain. As part of this argument, I also argue against Mark Schroeder's recent account of the weights of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations