Moral realism and semantic accounts of moral vagueness

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Miriam Schoenfield argues that moral realism and moral vagueness imply ontic vagueness. In particular, she argues that neither shifty nor rigid semantic accounts of vagueness can provide a satisfactory explanation of moral vagueness for moral realists. This paper constitutes a response. I argue that Schoenfield's argument against the shifty semantic account presupposes that moral indeterminacies can, in fact, be resolved determinately by crunching through linguistic data. I provide different reasons for rejecting this assumption. Furthermore, I argue that Schoenfield's rejection of the rigid semantic account is based on a presupposition that ultimately implies the very same claim that is under dispute: the vagueness of moral predicates in imperfect languages persists in the perfect language, as well.
No keywords specified (fix it)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
Archival date: 2020-07-20
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
129 ( #47,740 of 72,543 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
36 ( #23,754 of 72,543 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.