LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Leibowitz, Uri D. (2014)
Publisher: Brill
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
In this paper I assess the viability of a particularist explanation of moral knowledge.\ud First, I consider two arguments by Sean McKeever and Michael Ridge that purport to\ud show that a generalist, principle-based explanation of practical wisdom—understood\ud as the ability to acquire moral knowledge in a wide range of situations—is superior\ud to a particularist, non-principle-based account. I contend that both arguments\ud are unsuccessful. Then, I propose a particularist-friendly explanation of knowledge\ud of particular moral facts. I argue that when we are careful to keep separate the\ud various explanatory tasks at hand we can see that a particularist-friendly explanation\ud of the fact that (e.g.,) Jane knows that A is morally right might not be so difficult\ud to come by. Moreover, I suggest that a particularist approach to explaining knowledge\ud of particular moral facts may go some way towards discharging the challenge of moral\ud scepticism.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Bales, R.E., (1971) 'Act-Utilitarianism: Account of Right-making Characteristics or Decision-Making Procedure?', American Philosophical Quarterly 8:257-265.
    • Dancy, J., (2004) Ethics Without Principles (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
    • -- (1993) Moral Reasons (Blackwell Publishers).
    • Dreyfus. H.L. and Dreyfus, S.E. (1990) 'What is Morality? A Phenomenological Account of the Development of Ethical Expertise', in Rasmussen, D. (1990) Universalism vs. Communitarianism (The MIT Press) 237-264.
    • Dworkin, G. (1995) 'Unprincipled Ethics', Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 20:224-239.
    • Hempel, C.G., and Oppenheim, P., (1948) 'Studies in the Logic of Explanation', Philosophy of Science, 15(2):135-175.
    • Huemer (2007) 'Compassionate Phenomenal Conservatism', Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 74(1):30-55.
    • Kagan (2001) 'Thinking About Cases', Social Philosophy and Policy, 18:44-63.
    • Ladd, J., (1952) 'Ethics and Explanation', The Journal of Philosophy, 49(15):499-504.
    • Leibowitz, U.D. (2012) 'Particularism in Aristotle's Nicomachean EthicsT',he Journal of Moral Philosophy.
    • -- (2011) 'Scientific Explanation and Moral Explanation', Noûs 45(3):472-503.
    • -- (2009b) 'Moral Advice and Moral Theory', Philosophical Studies, 146(3):349-359.
    • -- (2009a) 'A Defense of a Particularist Research ProgramEt',hical Theory and Moral Practice, Volume 12, Issue 2.
    • McKeever, S., and Ridge, M., (2006)Principled Ethics: Generalism as a Regulative Ideal (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
    • Schroeder (2009) 'A Matter of Principle', Noûs 43(3):568-580.
    • Scriven, M. (1959) 'Truisms as the ground for historical explanations', in Gardiner, P., (ed.) (1959) Theories of History (The Free Press) pp. 443-475.
    • Zangwill, N., (2006) 'Moral Epistemology and the Because Constraint', in Dreier, J., (ed.) (2006) Contemporary Debates in Moral Theory (Blackwell Publishing).
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article