Defending Particularism from Supervenience/Resultance Attack

Acta Analytica 26 (4):387-402 (2011)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
I take the debate between the particularists and the principlists to be centered on the issue of whether there are true moral principles. One argument the principlists often appeal to in support of their claim that there are true moral principles is the argument from supervenience. Roughly, the argument is made up of the following three statements: (P1) If the thesis of moral supervenience holds, then there are true moral principles. (P2) The thesis of moral supervenience holds. (C) There are true moral principles, and hence particularism is false. In this paper, I argue that the above argument is not sound by attacking (P1). I hold that no general supervenient/resultance base has a robust enough configuration of contextual features as to ground the existence of true moral principles. If I am right about this, I think it would be indicative of a reason to be less confident about the truth of principlism and more confident about the truth of particularism
Categories
ISBN(s)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
TSUDPF
Upload history
Archival date: 2015-11-21
View other versions
Added to PP index
2011-06-15

Total views
260 ( #20,303 of 56,044 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
25 ( #30,203 of 56,044 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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