Location
University of Windsor
Document Type
Paper
Start Date
3-6-2009 9:00 AM
End Date
6-6-2009 5:00 PM
Abstract
Suppose two persons disagree over whether an act is right, justifying their judgments by appealing to divergent higher-level moral principles. These principles function as backing and rebuttals in their argumentation. To justify these principles, we may argue either that they would be accepted in some ideal model or that they are in reflective equilibrium with our considered moral judgments. Disagreement over the model indicates difference in philosophical anthropology but does not preclude resolution through argument.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Response to Submission
J Anthony Blair, Commentary on Freeman
Reader's Reactions
J Anthony Blair, Commentary on Freeman (June 2009)
Included in
Higher Level Moral Principles in Argumentation
University of Windsor
Suppose two persons disagree over whether an act is right, justifying their judgments by appealing to divergent higher-level moral principles. These principles function as backing and rebuttals in their argumentation. To justify these principles, we may argue either that they would be accepted in some ideal model or that they are in reflective equilibrium with our considered moral judgments. Disagreement over the model indicates difference in philosophical anthropology but does not preclude resolution through argument.
