Naturalism and the problem of normativity

This dissertation explores the way in which normative facts create a problem for naturalist approaches to philosophy. How can lumpy scientific matter give rise to technicolour normativity? How can normative facts show up in the world described from a scientific perspective? In this context, I start...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Turp, Michael-John David
Published: Durham University 2011
Subjects:
100
Online Access:http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.549187
id ndltd-bl.uk-oai-ethos.bl.uk-549187
record_format oai_dc
spelling ndltd-bl.uk-oai-ethos.bl.uk-5491872015-03-20T06:32:26ZNaturalism and the problem of normativityTurp, Michael-John David2011This dissertation explores the way in which normative facts create a problem for naturalist approaches to philosophy. How can lumpy scientific matter give rise to technicolour normativity? How can normative facts show up in the world described from a scientific perspective? In this context, I start by analysing Hume’s discussion of ’is’ and ‘ought’, Moore’s open question argument, and Kripke’s interpretation of Wittgenstein’s rule-following considerations. I then look at the nature of philosophical naturalism in detail, arguing that is fundamentally an epistemological commitment to the norms governing scientific publications. I consider the particular examples of Penelope Maddy’s approach to naturalising logic and the instrumentalist accounts of epistemic normativity favoured by advocates of naturalised epistemology. I argue, however, that these approaches to naturalising normativity are unsuccessful. In the second half of the dissertation, I develop a novel account of the nature of normative facts and explain how this relates to and resolves some of the difficulties raised in the first half. The account I defend has Kantian foundations and an Aristotelian superstructure. I associate the right with the necessary preconditions for engaging in valuable activity and the good with the satisfaction of the constitutive ends of activities and practices. I explain how my theory can account for epistemic normativity and defend a virtue-based theory of epistemic evaluation. Finally, I argue against desire-based accounts of reasons and in favour of a role for the emotions in normative cognition. The view I defend is intended to be compatible with our best scientific theories. However, it is not naturalistic insofar as it is justified by distinctively philosophical methods and relies on extra-scientific considerations.100Durham Universityhttp://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.549187http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/3469/Electronic Thesis or Dissertation
collection NDLTD
sources NDLTD
topic 100
spellingShingle 100
Turp, Michael-John David
Naturalism and the problem of normativity
description This dissertation explores the way in which normative facts create a problem for naturalist approaches to philosophy. How can lumpy scientific matter give rise to technicolour normativity? How can normative facts show up in the world described from a scientific perspective? In this context, I start by analysing Hume’s discussion of ’is’ and ‘ought’, Moore’s open question argument, and Kripke’s interpretation of Wittgenstein’s rule-following considerations. I then look at the nature of philosophical naturalism in detail, arguing that is fundamentally an epistemological commitment to the norms governing scientific publications. I consider the particular examples of Penelope Maddy’s approach to naturalising logic and the instrumentalist accounts of epistemic normativity favoured by advocates of naturalised epistemology. I argue, however, that these approaches to naturalising normativity are unsuccessful. In the second half of the dissertation, I develop a novel account of the nature of normative facts and explain how this relates to and resolves some of the difficulties raised in the first half. The account I defend has Kantian foundations and an Aristotelian superstructure. I associate the right with the necessary preconditions for engaging in valuable activity and the good with the satisfaction of the constitutive ends of activities and practices. I explain how my theory can account for epistemic normativity and defend a virtue-based theory of epistemic evaluation. Finally, I argue against desire-based accounts of reasons and in favour of a role for the emotions in normative cognition. The view I defend is intended to be compatible with our best scientific theories. However, it is not naturalistic insofar as it is justified by distinctively philosophical methods and relies on extra-scientific considerations.
author Turp, Michael-John David
author_facet Turp, Michael-John David
author_sort Turp, Michael-John David
title Naturalism and the problem of normativity
title_short Naturalism and the problem of normativity
title_full Naturalism and the problem of normativity
title_fullStr Naturalism and the problem of normativity
title_full_unstemmed Naturalism and the problem of normativity
title_sort naturalism and the problem of normativity
publisher Durham University
publishDate 2011
url http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.549187
work_keys_str_mv AT turpmichaeljohndavid naturalismandtheproblemofnormativity
_version_ 1716797905558306816