Morality and epistemic judgment : the argument from analogy / Christopher Cowie.
2019
BD161
Formats
| Format | |
|---|---|
| BibTeX | |
| MARCXML | |
| TextMARC | |
| MARC | |
| DublinCore | |
| EndNote | |
| NLM | |
| RefWorks | |
| RIS |
Linked e-resources
Linked Resource
Details
Title
Morality and epistemic judgment : the argument from analogy / Christopher Cowie.
Author
Edition
First edition.
ISBN
9780191878664 (electronic book)
Published
Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2019.
Language
English
Description
1 online resource.
Call Number
BD161
Dewey Decimal Classification
121
Summary
Moral judgments attempt to describe a reality that does not exist, so they are all false. This is the moral error theory, a deeply troubling yet plausible view that is now one of the canonical positions in moral philosophy. The most compelling argument against it is the argument from analogy. According to this, the moral error theory should be rejected because it would seriously compromise our practice of making epistemic judgments - judgments about how we ought to form and revise our beliefs in light of our evidence - and could undermine systematic thought and reason themselves. Christopher Cowie provides a novel assessment of the recent attention paid to this topic in moral philosophy and epistemology. He reasons that the argument from analogy fails because moral judgments are unlike judgments about how we ought to form and revise our beliefs in light of our evidence.
Note
Moral judgments attempt to describe a reality that does not exist, so they are all false. This is the moral error theory, a deeply troubling yet plausible view that is now one of the canonical positions in moral philosophy. The most compelling argument against it is the argument from analogy. According to this, the moral error theory should be rejected because it would seriously compromise our practice of making epistemic judgments - judgments about how we ought to form and revise our beliefs in light of our evidence - and could undermine systematic thought and reason themselves. Christopher Cowie provides a novel assessment of the recent attention paid to this topic in moral philosophy and epistemology. He reasons that the argument from analogy fails because moral judgments are unlike judgments about how we ought to form and revise our beliefs in light of our evidence.
Bibliography, etc. Note
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Access Note
Access limited to authorized users.
Source of Description
Description based on online resource; title from home page (viewed on November 15, 2019).
Series
Oxford scholarship online.
Available in Other Form
Print version: 9780198842736
Linked Resources
Record Appears in