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...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Published: |
Durham University
2011
|
Subjects: | |
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 |