Misunderstanding Metaethics: Difficulties Measuring Folk Objectivism and Relativism

IF 0.4 0 PHILOSOPHY Diametros Pub Date : 2020-05-12 DOI:10.33392/diam.1495
Lance S. Bush, D. Moss
{"title":"Misunderstanding Metaethics: Difficulties Measuring Folk Objectivism and Relativism","authors":"Lance S. Bush, D. Moss","doi":"10.33392/diam.1495","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recent research on the metaethical beliefs of ordinary people appears to show that they are metaethical pluralists that adopt different metaethical standards for different moral judgments. Yet the methods used to evaluate folk metaethical belief rely on the assumption that participants interpret what they are asked in metaethical terms. We argue that most participants do not interpret questions designed to elicit metaethical beliefs in metaethical terms, or at least not in the way researchers intend. As a result, existing methods are not reliable measures of metaethical belief. We end by discussing the implications of our account for the philosophical and practical implications of research on the psychology of metaethics.","PeriodicalId":42290,"journal":{"name":"Diametros","volume":"17 1","pages":"6-21"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diametros","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33392/diam.1495","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Recent research on the metaethical beliefs of ordinary people appears to show that they are metaethical pluralists that adopt different metaethical standards for different moral judgments. Yet the methods used to evaluate folk metaethical belief rely on the assumption that participants interpret what they are asked in metaethical terms. We argue that most participants do not interpret questions designed to elicit metaethical beliefs in metaethical terms, or at least not in the way researchers intend. As a result, existing methods are not reliable measures of metaethical belief. We end by discussing the implications of our account for the philosophical and practical implications of research on the psychology of metaethics.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
误解元伦理学:衡量民间客观主义与相对主义的困难
最近对普通人元伦理信仰的研究似乎表明,他们是元伦理多元主义者,对不同的道德判断采用不同的元伦理标准。然而,用于评估民间元伦理信仰的方法依赖于这样一种假设,即参与者用元伦理的术语来解释他们被问到的问题。我们认为,大多数参与者并没有用元伦理的术语来解释旨在引发元伦理信仰的问题,或者至少没有按照研究人员的意图来解释。因此,现有的方法并不是衡量元伦理信仰的可靠方法。最后,我们讨论了我们对元伦理学心理学研究的哲学和实践意义的解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Diametros
Diametros PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Reklamy eksperymentalnych produktów leczniczych i procedur medycznych w świetle polskiego prawa i etyki mediów Programy poszerzonego dostępu jako źródło danych poznawczych Atheist Therapy: Radical Embodiment in Early Modern Medical Materialism Niebezpieczne związki. Problem bliskości we współczesnej dyskusji nad zasadą podwójnego skutku Expertise, disagreement, and trust in vaccine science and policy. The importance of transparency in a world of experts
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1