Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Peer-Disagreement about Restaurant Bills and Abortion

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

A Conciliationist Response to Peer Disagreement Does Not Lead to Scepticism in Ethics

image of Grazer Philosophische Studien

The author defends Conciliationism as a response to peer-disagreement in ethics against a prominent objection: if in cases of peer-disagreement we have to move our credences towards those of our dissenting peers, then we have to adopt scepticism in fields where disagreement between peers abounds. For this objection, the case of ethics is particularly worrisome. The author argues that the objection from scepticism is based on a highly idealised notion of an epistemic peer. In cases of disagreement about ethical issues, it is often unknown to us what another person counts as her evidence, since one’s notions of what counts as evidence and what weight to attach to different forms of evidence are impacted by one’s global outlook. Being aware of what an agent considers as evidence requires familiarity with that agent’s global outlook. This introduces two constraints on epistemic peerhood in cases of disagreement about ethics: an epistemic constraint (I might not be sufficiently aware of what someone counts as evidence, and hence not consider that person a peer), and a factual constraint (we might disregard each other’s evidence, and hence not consider each other peers).

Affiliations: 1: Trinity College Dublin, stickerm@tcd.ie

10.1163/18756735-000019
/content/journals/10.1163/18756735-000019
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
10
5
Loading
Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/18756735-000019
Loading

Data & Media loading...

1. Audi Robert 2015. “"Intuition and Its Place in Ethics".” Journal of the American Philosophical Association Vol 1, 5777.
2. Christensen David 2007. “"Epistemology of Disagreement: The Good News".” Philosophical Review Vol 116, 187217.
3. Christensen David 2009. “"Disagreement as Evidence: The Epistemology of Controversy".” Philosophy Compass Vol 4, 756767.
4. Christensen David 2011. “"Disagreement. Question-Begging and Epistemic Self-Criticism".” Philosophers’ Imprint Vol 11, 122.
5. Christensen David, 2014. "“Disagreement and Public Controversy.”" In: Essays in Collective Epistemology , edited by Jennifer Lackey,, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 142167.
6. Elga Adam 2007. “"Reflection and Disagreement".” noûs Vol 41, 478502.
7. Elga Adam, 2010. "“How to Disagree about how to Disagree.”" In: Disagreement , edited by Richard Feldman, & Ted Warfield, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 175187.
8. Elgin Catherine, 2010. "“Persistent Disagreement.”" In: Disagreement , edited by Richard Feldman, & Ted Warfield, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 5368.
9. Enoch David 2011. “"Not Just a Truthometer: Taking Oneself Seriously (but not Too Seriously) in Cases of Peer Disagreement".” Mind Vol 119, 953997.
10. Feldman Richard, 2006. "“Epistemological Puzzles About Disagreement.”" In: Epistemology Futures , edited by Stephen Hetherington, New York: Oxford University Press, 216236.
11. Feldman Richard, 2007. "“Reasonable Religious Disagreements.”" In: Philosophers Without Gods: Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life , edited by Louise Antony, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 194214.
12. Francis Bryan 2014. Disagreement . Cambridge: Polity Press.
13. Gutting Gary 1982. Religious Belief and Religious Skepticism . Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
14. Kalderon Mark 2005. Moral Fictionalism . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15. Kant Immanuel, 1900ff. Kants gesammelte Schriften , edited by the Königlich Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Georg Reimer: Berlin.
16. Kelly Thomas, 2005. "“The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement.”" In: Oxford Studies in Epistemology , edited by Tamar Gendler, & John Hawthorne, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 167196.
17. Kelly Thomas, 2010. "“Peer Disagreement and Higher Order Evidence.”" In: Disagreement , edited by Richard Feldman, & Ted Warfield, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 112175.
18. Kelly Thomas, 2013. "“Disagreement and the Burden of Judgement.”" In: The Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays , edited by David Christensen, & Jennifer Lackey, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3154.
19. Killoren David 2010. “"Moral Intuitions, Reliability and Disagreement".” Journal of Ethics & Social Philosophy Vol 4, 135.
20. King Nathan 2012. “"Disagreement: What’s the Problem? or A Good Peer is Hard to Find".” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Vol 85, 249272.
21. Kornblith Hilary, 2010. "“Belief in the Face of Controversy.”" In: Disagreement , edited by Richard Feldman, & Ted Warfield, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2952.
22. Lam Barry 2011. “"On the Rationality of Belief-Invariance in Light of Peer Disagreement".” Philosophical Review Vol 120, 207245.
23. Lehrer Keith 1976. “"When Rational Disagreement is Impossible".” noûs Vol 10, 327332.
24. Matheson Jonathan 2009. “"Conciliatory Views of Disagreement and Higher-Order Evidence".” Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology Vol 6, 269279.
25. McGrath Sarah, 2007. "“Moral Disagreement and Moral Expertise.”" In: Oxford Studies in Metaethics , edited by Russ Shafer-Landau, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 87107.
26. Pettit Philip 2006. “"When to Defer to Majority Testimony – and When Not."” Analysis Vol 66, 179187.
27. Plantinga Alvin 2000. Warranted Christian Belief . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
28. Rosen Gideon 2001. “"Nominalism, Naturalism, Epistemic Relativism".” Philosophical Perspectives Vol 15, 6991
29. Spelman Elizabeth, 2007. "“Managing Ignorance.”" In: Race and Epistemologies of Ignorance , edited by Shannon Sullivan, & Nancy Tuana, Albany: Suny Press, 119131.
30. Van Inwagen Peter, 1996. “"Is it Wrong, Everywhere, Always, and for Anyone, to Believe Anything on Insufficient Evidence?"” In: Faith, Freedom, and Rationality: Philosophy of Religion Today , edited by Jeff Jordan, & Daniel Howard-Snyder, London: Rowman and Littlefield, 137153.
31. Van Inwagen Peter, 2010. “"We’re Right. They’re Wrong."” In: Disagreement , edited by Richard Feldman, & Ted Warfield, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1029.
32. Wedgwood Ralph, 2006. "“The Moral Evil Demons.”" In: Disagreement , edited by Richard Feldman, & Ted Warfield, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 216247.
33. Weintraub Ruth 2013. “"Can Steadfast Peer Disagreement Be Rational?”" Philosophical Quarterly Vol 63, 740759.
34. Wietmarschen Han 2013. “"Peer Disagreement, Evidence, and Well-Groundedness".” Philosophical Review Vol 122, 395425.
35. White Roger 2005. “"Epistemic Permissiveness".” Philosophical Perspectives Vol 19, 445459.
36. White Roger, 2014. "“Evidence Cannot Be Permissive.”" In: Contemporary Debates in Epistemology , edited by Matthias Steup, & Ernest Sosa, Oxford: Blackwell, 31224.
37. Worsnip Alex 2014. “"Disagreement about Disagreement? What Disagreement about Disagreement?”" Philosophers’ Imprint Vol 18, 120.
http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/18756735-000019
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/18756735-000019
2017-10-24
2018-10-21

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
     
    Grazer Philosophische Studien — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation