Abstract
It is generally believed that moral reductionism is immune from notorious problems in moral metaphysics and epistemology, such as the problem of moral explanation - it is at least on this dimension that moral reductionism scores better than moral anti-reductionism. However, in this article I reject this popular view. First, I argue that moral reductionism fails to help vindicate the explanatory efficacy of moral properties because the reductionist solution is either circular or otiose. Second, I attempt to show that a successful vindication, if any, of moral explanation requires moral-descriptive irreducibility. My discussion thus raises an explanatory challenge to moral reductionism.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 309-325 |
| Number of pages | 17 |
| Journal | Theoria |
| Volume | 78 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Dec 2012 |
Keywords
- depth
- moral explanation
- moral reductionism
- unification