Volume 23, Number 2
November 2022
ARTICLE

Moral Disagreement and Practical Direction

Volume 23, Number 2, November 2022, Pages 273–303
https://doi.org/10.26556/jesp.v23i2.1740
PDFPDF

Abstract

Whenever A judges that x-ing is morally wrong and B judges that x-ing is not morally wrong, we think that they disagree. The two standard types of accounts of such moral disagreements both presuppose that the class of moral wrong-judgments is uniform, though in different ways. According to the belief account, the disagreement is doxastic: A and B have beliefs with conflicting cognitive contents. This presupposes “belief-uniformity”: that the content of moral concepts is invariant in such a way that, whenever A believes that x-ing is morally wrong and B believes that x-ing is not morally wrong, their beliefs have mutually inconsistent contents. According to the attitude account, moral disagreements are non-doxastic: A and B have clashing practical attitudes. This presupposes “attitude-uniformity”: that moral judgments are always accompanied by, or consist of, desire-like attitudes. Consequently, neither account is available if both uniformity-claims are rejected—as e.g., various forms of content-relativism do. This paper presents a new non-doxastic account of deontic moral disagreement, consistent with the rejection of both uniformity-claims. I argue first, that even if deontic moral judgments are not desires, and are not always accompanied by desires, they have practical direction in the same sense as desires: they are attitudes that one can act in accordance or discordance with. Second: deontic moral disagreement can be understood as clashes in practical direction: roughly, A and B morally disagree if, and only if, some way of acting is in accordance with A’s judgment but in discordance with B’s.
Copyright © 2022 Ragnar Francén
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license.
|

Moral Disagreement and the Question Under Discussion

Stina Björkholm

Evolution and Moral Disagreement

Michael Klenk

Moral Disagreement and Epistemic Advantages: A Challenge to McGrath

Ben Sherman

Moral Intuitions, Reliability and Disagreement

David Killoren

Unifying Moral and Epistemic Praiseworthiness

Leo Eisenbach

Being Wronged and Understanding Moral Wrongness

Daniel Vanello

When Enough Is Not Enough: Satisficing and Moral Efficiency

Konstantin Weber

Parents and Peers: A Kantian Moral Development

William Grant Ray

Soldiers and Moral Tragedy: Comments on Renzo

Christopher Kutz

The Moral Harms of Homelessness

Bradley Hillier-Smith

It’s Only Natural! Moral Progress Through Denaturalization

Charlie Blunden

The Overweighted Integrity Problem: Conscience, Complicity, and Moral Standing

Kyle G. Fritz

Portico