Sensibility theory and conservative complancency

Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 86 (4):544–555 (2005)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
In Ruling Passions, Simon Blackburn contends that we should reject sensibility theory because it serves to support a conservative complacency. Blackburn's strategy is attractive in that it seeks to win this metaethical dispute – which ultimately stems from a deep disagreement over antireductionism – on the basis of an uncontroversial normative consideration. Therefore, Blackburn seems to offer an easy solution to an apparently intractable debate. We will show, however, that Blackburn's argument against sensibility theory does not succeed; it is no more supportive of conservative complacency than Blackburn's noncognitivism. A victory for noncognitivism cannot be so easily won.
Keywords
No keywords specified (fix it)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
ROSSTA
Upload history
Archival date: 2015-11-21
View other versions
Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
248 ( #21,141 of 55,895 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
14 ( #42,121 of 55,895 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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