Abstract
Miriam Schoenfield argues that moral realism and moral vagueness imply ontic vagueness. In particular, she argues that neither shifty nor rigid semantic accounts of vagueness can provide a satisfactory explanation of moral vagueness for moral realists. This paper constitutes a response. I argue that Schoenfield's argument against the shifty semantic account presupposes that moral indeterminacies can, in fact, be resolved determinately by crunching through linguistic data. I provide different reasons for rejecting this assumption. Furthermore, I argue that Schoenfield's rejection of the rigid semantic account is based on a presupposition that ultimately implies the very same claim that is under dispute: the vagueness of moral predicates in imperfect languages persists in the perfect language, as well.
Dokumententyp: | Zeitschriftenartikel |
---|---|
EU Funded Grant Agreement Number: | 675415 |
EU-Projekte: | Horizon 2020 > Marie Skłodowska Curie Actions > Marie Skłodowska-Curie Innovative Training Networks > 675415: Diaphora: Philosophical Problems, Resilience and Persistent Disagreement |
Keywords: | Moral realism, moral vagueness, ontic vagueness, semantic accounts of vagueness, epistemicism, moral indeterminacy |
Fakultät: | Philosophie, Wissenschaftstheorie und Religionswissenschaft > Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy (MCMP) |
Themengebiete: | 100 Philosophie und Psychologie > 100 Philosophie
100 Philosophie und Psychologie > 170 Ethik |
ISSN: | 0020-174X, 1502-3923 |
Sprache: | Englisch |
Dokumenten ID: | 69288 |
Datum der Veröffentlichung auf Open Access LMU: | 11. Dez. 2019, 11:33 |
Letzte Änderungen: | 04. Nov. 2020, 13:51 |