株式会社極東書店トップ > 商品一覧 > Moral Reality and the Empirical Sciences.
商品詳細
Moral Reality and the Empirical Sciences. 道徳的実在性と経験科学
・ISBN 978-1-138-50309-0 2018 hard GB£ 171.99
¥54,486.- (税込) ※(※)価格はご注文時の参考価格となります。
納品価格につきましては書籍の入荷時点で確定となります。
版元の原価改定、外国為替の変動等により異なる場合がございますので、予めご了承下さい。
・ISBN 978-0-367-73465-7 2020 paper GB£ 47.99
¥15,203.- (税込) ※(※)価格はご注文時の参考価格となります。
納品価格につきましては書籍の入荷時点で確定となります。
版元の原価改定、外国為替の変動等により異なる場合がございますので、予めご了承下さい。
電子版あり 大学・学術機関向け電子ブック(eBook)ISBN 978-1-315-14521-1
| 著者・編者 | Pölzler, Thomas, |
|---|---|
| シリーズ | Routledge Studies in Ethics and Moral Theory |
| 出版社 | (Routledge, UK) |
| ページ数 | 238 pp. |
| 言語 | ENG |
| ニュース番号 | <645-214 645-P421> |
解説
Are there objective moral truths (things that are morally right or wrong independently of what anybody thinks about them)? To answer this question more and more scholars have recently begun to appeal to evidence from scientific disciplines such as psychology, neuroscience, biology, and anthropology. This book investigates this novel scientific approach in a comprehensive, empirically focused, partly clarificatory, and partly metatheoretical way. It argues for two main theses. First, it is possible for the empirical sciences to contribute to the moral realism/anti-realism debate. And second, most appeals to science that have so far been proposed are insufficiently empirically substantiated.
The book's main chapters address four prominent science-based arguments for or against the existence of objective moral truths: the presumptive argument, the argument from moral disagreement, the sentimentalist argument, and the evolutionary debunking argument. For each of these arguments Thomas Poelzler first identifies the sense in which its underlying empirical hypothesis would have to be true in order for the argument to work. Then he shows that the available scientific evidence fails to support this hypothesis. Finally, he also makes suggestions as to how to test the hypothesis more validly in future scientific research.
Moral Reality and the Empirical Sciences is an important contribution to the moral realism/anti-realism debate that will appeal both to philosophers and scientists interested in moral psychology and metaethics.