Defining moral realism

Jennifer FOSTER*, Mark SCHROEDER

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Book Chapters | Papers in Conference ProceedingsBook ChapterResearchpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Wherever philosophers disagree, one of the things at issue is likely to be what they disagree about, itself. In addition to asking whether moral realism is true, and which forms of moral realism are more likely to be true than others, we can also ask what it would mean for some form of moral realism to be true. The usual aspiration of such inquiry is to find definitions that all can agree on, so that we can use terms in a uniform way. But we doubt that this aspiration is always possible, or even desirable. It will be our goal in this chapter to sketch out some of our reasons for such skepticism, and to lay out a picture of what philosophical inquiry can look like in metaethics and beyond, even when it is impossible to reach uniform agreement on the terms of the debate.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationThe Oxford Handbook of Moral Realism
EditorsPaul BLOOMFIELD, David COPP
PublisherOxford University Press
Chapter1
Pages3-17
Number of pages15
ISBN (Electronic)9780190068257
ISBN (Print)9780190068226
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 18 Sept 2023
Externally publishedYes

Publication series

NameOxford Handbooks

Keywords

  • definition
  • disagreement
  • metaphilosophy
  • moral realism
  • common ground
  • imagination

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Defining moral realism'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this