Repository URL:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/10392
DOI:
10.1387/theoria.390
Author(s):
Dan López de Sa
Publisher(s):
Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea / Universidad del País Vasco
article description
According to Jackson, Pettit & Smith (2000), “restricted particularism” is not affected by their supervenience-based consideration against particularism but, they claim, suffer from a different difficulty, roughly that it would violate the platitude about moral argument that, in debating controversial moral issues, a central role is played by various similarity claims. I present a defense of “restricted particularism” from this objection, which accommodates the platitudinous character of the claim that ordinary participants in conversations concerning the evaluative are committed to descriptive similarities and differences being relevant in the way described by Jackson, Pettit and Smith, to moral similarities and differences. My defense exploits a presuppositional component congenial to response-dependent proposals such as Lewis’s (1989).

This article has 0 Wikipedia mention.