The sense of incredibility in ethics

Philosophical Studies 176 (1):93-115 (2019)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
It is often said that normative properties are “just too different” to reduce to other kinds of properties. This suggests that many philosophers find it difficult to believe reductive theses in ethics. I argue that the distinctiveness of the normative concepts we use in thinking about reductive theses offers a more promising explanation of this psychological phenomenon than the falsity of Reductive Realism. To identify the distinctiveness of normative concepts, I use resources from familiar Hybrid views of normative language and thought to develop a Hybrid view of normative concepts. In addition to using this new Hybrid view to explain why reductive theses are difficult to believe, I show how to preserve several patterns of inference involving normative concepts that, intuitively, it is possible to make, and hence answer an important recent challenge to Hybrid views from Mark Schroeder.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
First archival date: 2017-11-15
Latest version: 3 (2021-03-24)
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
337 ( #19,268 of 2,448,892 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
29 ( #22,897 of 2,448,892 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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