Reply to Wilson Mendonça’s “Supervenience arguments against robust moral realism”

Rafael Graebin Vogelmann

Abstract


In his “Supervenience arguments against robust moral realism”, Wilson Mendonça sets out to defend robust moral realism (the thesis that moral properties are not identical to natural properties) against the Explanatory Argument based on Supervenience. According to this argument, robust realism is unable to account for specific supervenience facts; given that the identification of moral and natural properties allows one to account for such facts, robust realism has an explanatory disadvantage vis-à-vis reductive realism. Mendonça’s answer consists in holding (i) that reductive realism has trouble accounting for the asymmetric character of specific supervenience facts and (ii) that the notion of reduction by analysis, which allows one to properly explain specific supervenience facts, supports only a weak form of reductionism that is compatible with robust realism. I argue that these claims are false and that, therefore, Mendonça fails to show that the Explanatory Argument is not a threat to robust realism.

Keywords: robust moral realism, supervenience, moral reductivism, reduction by identity, reduction by analysis.


Full Text: PDF (Português (Brasil))



ISSN: 1984-8234 - Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License [Updated on September 23, 2016].

São Leopoldo, RS. Av. Unisinos, 950. Bairro Cristo Rei, CEP: 93.022-750. Atendimento Unisinos +55 (51) 3591 1122 Ext.: 3219




SCImago Journal & Country RankCrossref Member Badge Crossref Similarity Check logo