Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-10T05:57:35.611Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CONCILIATIONISM AND MORAL SPINELESSNESS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 December 2016

James Fritz Open the ORCID record for James Fritz [Opens in a new window]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents a challenge to conciliationist views of disagreement. I argue that conciliationists cannot satisfactorily explain why we need not revise our beliefs in response to certain moral disagreements. Conciliationists can attempt to meet this challenge in one of two ways. First, they can individuate disputes narrowly. This allows them to argue that we have dispute-independent reason to distrust our opponents’ moral judgment. This approach threatens to license objectionable dogmatism. It also inappropriately gives deep epistemic significance to superficial questions about how to think about the subject matter of a dispute. Second, conciliationists can individuate disputes widely. This allows them to argue that we lack dispute-independent reason to trust our opponents’ moral judgment. But such arguments fail; our background of generally shared moral beliefs gives us good reason to trust the moral judgment of our opponents, even after we set quite a bit of our reasoning aside. On either approach, then, conciliationists should acknowledge that we have dispute-independent reason to trust the judgment of those who reject our moral beliefs. Given a conciliationist view of disagreement's epistemic role, this has the unattractive result that we are epistemically required to revise some of our most intuitively secure moral beliefs.

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , March 2018 , pp. 101 - 118
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Audi, R. 2008. ‘Rational Disagreement as a Challenge to Practical Ethics and Moral Theory: An Essay in Moral Epistemology.’ In Smith, Q. (ed.), Epistemology: New Essays, pp. 225–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, D. 2007. ‘Epistemology of Disagreement: The Good News.’ Philosophical Review, 116: 187–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, D. 2011. ‘Disagreement, Question-Begging, and Epistemic Self-Criticism.’ Philosopher's Imprint, 11: 1–22.Google Scholar
Christensen, D. 2014. ‘Conciliation, Uniqueness, and Rational Toxicity.’ Noûs, 50: 1–20.Google Scholar
Decker, J. and Groll, D. 2013. ‘The (In)significance of Moral Disagreement for Moral Knowledge.’ In Shafer-Landau, R. (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaethics, Vol. 8, pp. 140–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Elga, A. 2007. ‘Reflection and Disagreement.’ Noûs, 41: 478–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enoch, D. 2010. ‘Not Just a Truthometer: Taking Oneself Seriously (but not Too Seriously) in Cases of Peer Disagreement.’ Mind, 119: 953–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, R. 2006. ‘Epistemological Puzzles about Disagreement.’ In Hetherington, S. (ed.), Epistemology Futures, pp. 216–36. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frances, B. 2010. ‘The Reflective Epistemic Renegade.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 81: 419–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalderon, M. E. 2005. Moral Fictionalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, N. 2012. ‘Disagreement: What's the Problem? Or A Good Peer is Hard to Find.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 85: 249–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornblith, H. 2010. ‘Belief in the Face of Controversy.’ In Feldman, R. and Warfield, T. (eds), Disagreement, pp. 29–52. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lackey, J. 2010a. ‘A Justificationist View of Disagreement's Epistemic Significance.’ In Haddock, A., Millar, A. and Pritchard, D. (eds), Social Epistemology, pp. 298–325. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lackey, J. 2010b. ‘What Should We Do When We Disagree?’ In Gendler, T. and Hawthorne, J. (eds), Oxford Studies in Epistemology, Vol. 3, pp. 274–93. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lord, E. 2014. ‘From Independence to Conciliationism: An Obituary.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 92: 365–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGrath, S. 2007. ‘Moral Disagreement and Moral Expertise.’ In Shafer-Landau, R. (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaethics, vol. 3, pp. 87–108. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rotondo, A. 2015. ‘Disagreement and Intellectual Scepticism.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy 93(2): 251–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Setiya, K. 2013. Knowing Right from Wrong. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sidgwick, H. 1981. The Methods of Ethics. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
Vavova, K. 2014. ‘Moral Disagreement and Moral Skepticism.’ Philosophical Perspectives, 28(1): 302–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wedgwood, R. 2014. “Moral Disagreement among Philosophers.’ In Bergmann, M. and Kain, P. (eds), Challenges to Moral and Religious Belief: Disagreement and Evolution, pp. 23–39. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar