Posts Tagged the nature of normativity

Wedgwood on Moral Knowledge and Moral Epistemology pt. II

Section Three: The Epistemology of Normative Belief Part II: Disagreement and the A Priori Having articulated a theory of how we can come to have moral knowledge (see here), Wedgwood turns to whether such knowledge is a priori, and if so, how there can be such widespread moral disagreement. Wedgwood takes Kant’s work on the […]

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Wedgwood on Moral Knowledge and Moral Epistemology pt I

Section Three: The Epistemology of Normative Belief. Part I: The Status of Normative Intuitions (Part II will cover the next chapter of the section on moral epistemology, entitled, “Disagreement and the A Priori”) Wedgwood turns to the crucial question of how we might be justified in moral beliefs, using again the thesis that the intentional […]

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

1 Comment

Ralph Wedgwood on The Metaphysics of Normative Facts

Part Two: The Metaphysics of Normative Facts In part two of The Nature of Normativity, Wedgwood delves into the messy metaphysics of normativity, and takes some pretty remarkable positions, which include, that “the intentional is normative”, that normative facts are causally efficacious, and that though normative facts and mental states are irreducible, his view is […]

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

1 Comment

Wedgwood’s Moral Semantics Program: Conceptual Role Semantics

It is now that Wedgwood posits his favored semantic theory for normative judgments, drawing inspiration from proponents of conceptual role semantics to argue that the nature of a concept is its role in thought and reasoning, and from this that the essential role of normative concepts is a regulative role in practical reasoning. This semantic […]

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

1 Comment