Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-kl59c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-20T07:17:35.678Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in Ethics

Epistemology and Methodology in Ethics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 May 2020

Tristram McPherson
Tristram McPherson
Affiliation:
Ohio State University

Summary

This Element introduces several prominent themes in contemporary work on the epistemology and methodology of ethics. Topics addressed include skeptical challenges in ethics, epistemic arguments in metaethics, what (if anything) is epistemically distinctive of the ethical. Also considered are methodological questions in ethics, including questions about which ethical concepts we should investigate, and what our goals should be in ethical inquiry.
Get access

Keywords

moral epistemologymethodologyethicsmoral skepticismethical knowledge

Information

Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in Ethics
Online ISBN: 9781108581493
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 11 June 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Element purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Bibliography

Alston, W. (2005). Beyond “Justification.” Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, E. (2017). Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science. In Zalta, E., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 Edition), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/feminism-epistemology/.Google Scholar
Audi, R. (2004). The Good in the Right, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, D. (2018). The Varieties of Normativity. In McPherson, T. & Plunkett, D., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Metaethics. New York: Routledge, 567–81.Google Scholar
Bedke, M. S. (2010). “Intuitional Epistemology in Ethics.” Philosophy Compass, 5(12), 1069–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bedke, M. S. (2018). Cognitivism and Non-Cognitivism. In McPherson, T. & Plunkett, D., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Metaethics. New York: Routledge, 292–307.Google Scholar
Bengson, J. (2015). “The Intellectual Given.’ Mind, 124(495): 707–60.Google Scholar
Boghossian, P. (1996). “Analyticity Reconsidered.” Noûs, 30(3): 360–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, R. (2018). The Rational Impermissibility of Accepting (Some) Racial Generalizations. Synthese.Google Scholar
Brandt, R. (1992). Morality, Utilitarianism, and Rights, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Burgess, A. (2020). Never Say “Never.” In Burgess, A., Cappelan, H., & Plunkett, D., eds., Conceptual Ethics and Conceptual Engineering. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 125–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, A. & Plunkett, D. (2013). “Conceptual Ethics I.” Philosophy Compass, 8(12): 1091–1101.Google Scholar
Caruso, G. (2018). Skepticism about Moral Responsibility. In Zalta, E., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2018 Edition), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/skepticism-moral-responsibility/.Google Scholar
Chignell, A. (2018). The Ethics of Belief. In Zalta, E., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2018 Edition), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/ethics-belief/.Google Scholar
Christensen, D. (2007). “Epistemology of Disagreement: The Good News.” The Philosophical Review, 116(2): 187–217.Google Scholar
Christensen, D. (2010). “Higher-Order Evidence.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 81(1): 185–215.Google Scholar
Cohen, S. (2016). “Theorizing about the Epistemic.” Inquiry, 59(7–8): 839–57.Google Scholar
Copp, D. (1991). “Moral Skepticism.” Philosophical Studies, 62(3): 203–33.Google Scholar
Copp, D. (2008). “Darwinian Skepticism about Moral Realism.” Philosophical Issues, 18(1): 186–206.Google Scholar
Copp, D. (2012). Experiments, Intuitions, and Methodology in Moral and Political Theory. In Landau, R. S., ed., Oxford Studies in Meta-Ethics, vol. 7. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–36.Google Scholar
Cowan, R. (2015). “Perceptual Intuitionism.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 91(1), 164–93.Google Scholar
Cuneo, T.& Shafer-Landau, R. (2014). “The Moral Fixed Points.” Philosophical Studies, 171(3): 399–443.Google Scholar
Darwall, S. (2018). Ethics and Morality. In McPherson, T. & Plunkett, D., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Metaethics. New York: Routledge, 552–66.Google Scholar
Descartes, R. (1984). Philosophical Writings Vol. 2. Cottingham, J., Stoothoff, R., & Murdoch, D., trans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dorr, C. (2002). “Non-Cognitivism and Wishful Thinking.” Noûs, 36(1): 97–103.Google Scholar
Dunaway, W. (2018). Realism and Objectivity. In McPherson, T. & Plunkett, D., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Metaethics. New York: Routledge, 135–50.Google Scholar
Eklund, M. (2017). Choosing Normative Concepts, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Enoch, D. (2006). “Agency, Shmagency.” Philosophical Review, 115(2): 169–98.Google Scholar
Enoch, D. (2011). Taking Morality Seriously. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Faraci, D. (2015). “A Hard Look at Moral Perception.” Philosophical Studies, 172(8): 2055–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, R. (2003). Epistemology. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Fine, K. (2001). “The Question of Realism.” Philosophers’ Imprint, 1(1): 1–30.Google Scholar
Foley, R. (2001). Intellectual Trust in Oneself and Others. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic Injustice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fritz, J. (2017). “Pragmatic Encroachment and Moral Encroachment.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 98(51), 643–61.Google Scholar
Fritz, J. & McPherson, T. (2019). “Moral Steadfastness and Meta-Ethics.” American Philosophical Quarterly, 56(1): 43–55.Google Scholar
Geuss, R. (1981). The Idea of a Critical Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbard, A. (2003). Thinking How to Live. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. & Blanchard, T. (2018). Social Epistemology. In Zalta, E., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018 Edition), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/epistemology-social/.Google Scholar
Greene, J. (2007). The Secret Joke of Kant’s Soul. In Sinnott-Armstrong, W., ed., Moral Psychology: The Neuroscience of Morality, vol. 3. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 35–79.Google Scholar
Haidt, J. (2001). “The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment.” Psychological Review, 108 (4): 814–34.Google Scholar
Hare., R. M. (1981). Moral Thinking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harman, G. (1977). The Nature of Morality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hasan, A. & Fumerton, R. (2018). Foundationalist Theories of Epistemic Justification. In Zalta, E., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018 Edition), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/justep-foundational/.Google Scholar
Haslanger, S. (2012). Resisting Reality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hills, A. (2009). “Moral Testimony and Moral Epistemology.” Ethics, 120(1): 94–127.Google Scholar
Hooker, B. (2000). Ideal Code, Real World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hopkins, R. (2007). “What Is Wrong with Moral Testimony?” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 74(3): 611–34.Google Scholar
Horn, J. (2017). “Moral Realism, Fundamental Moral Disagreement, and Moral Reliability.” Journal of Value Inquiry, 51(3): 363–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huemer, M. (2005). Ethical Intuitionism. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Huemer, M. (2007). “Compassionate Phenomenal Conservatism.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 74(1): 30–55.Google Scholar
Huemer, M. (2008). “Revisionary Intuitionism.” Social Philosophy and Policy, 25(1): 368–92.Google Scholar
Jackson, F.& Pettit, P. (1995). “Moral Functionalism and Moral Motivation.” Philosophical Quarterly, 45(178): 20–40.Google Scholar
Johnston, M. (2001). “The Authority of Affect.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 63(1): 181–214.Google Scholar
Jones, K. (1999). “Second-Hand Moral Knowledge.” The Journal of Philosophy, 96(2): 55–78.Google Scholar
Jones, K. (2006). Moral Epistemology. In Jackson, F. & Smith, M., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Analytic Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 63–85.Google Scholar
Joyce, R. (2006). The Evolution of Morality. Cambridge, MA: Bradford.Google Scholar
Kagan, S. (1998). Normative Ethics. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Kagan, S. (2001). Thinking About Cases. In Paul, E. F., Miller, F. D., & Paul, J., eds., Moral Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kahane, G. (2011). “Evolutionary Debunking Arguments.” Noûs, 45(1): 103–25.Google Scholar
Kauppinen, A. (2018). Moral Sentimentalism. In Zalta, E., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018 Edition), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/moral-sentimentalism/.Google Scholar
Kim, B. (2017). “Pragmatic Encroachment in Epistemology.” Philosophy Compass, 12(5).Google Scholar
Kelly, T. (2003). “Epistemic Rationality As Instrumental Rationality: A Critique.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 66(3): 612–40.Google Scholar
Kelly, T. (2005). “Moorean Facts and Belief Revision, or Can the Skeptic Win?” Philosophical Perspectives, 19(1): 179–209.Google Scholar
Klein, P. (2015). Skepticism. In Zalta, E., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2015 Edition) https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/skepticism/.Google Scholar
Korsgaard, C. (1996). Sources of Normativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lillehammer, H. (2007). Companions in Guilt. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
Lutz, M.& Ross, J. (2018). Moral Skepticism. In McPherson, T. and Plunkett, D., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Metaethics. New York: Routledge, 484–98.Google Scholar
Mackie, J. L. (1977). Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1970). The German Ideology. Lough, W., trans., Arthur, C. J., ed. New York: International Publishers.Google Scholar
May, J. (2014). “Does Disgust Influence Moral Judgment?” Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 92 (1): 125–41.Google Scholar
McGrath, S. (2004). “Moral Knowledge by Perception.” Philosophical Perspectives, 18(1): 209–28.Google Scholar
McGrath, S. (2008). Moral Disagreement and Moral Expertise. In Shafer-Landau, R., ed., Oxford Studies in Metaethics, vol. 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 87–108.Google Scholar
McGrath, S. (2011). “Skepticism about Moral Expertise As a Puzzle for Moral Realism.” Journal of Philosophy, 108(3): 111–37.Google Scholar
McPherson, T. (2009). “Moorean Arguments and Moral Revisionism.” Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy, 3(1).Google Scholar
McPherson, T. (2012). “Unifying Moral Methodology.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 93(4): 523–49.Google Scholar
McPherson, T. (2015a). A Moorean Defense of the Omnivore? In Bramble, B. & Fischer, R., The Moral Complexities of Eating Meat. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 118–34.Google Scholar
McPherson, T. (2015b). The Methodological Irrelevance of Reflective Equilibrium. In Daly, C., ed., The Palgrave Handbook of Philosophical Methods. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 652–74.Google Scholar
McPherson, T. (2015c). Open Question Argument. In Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Taylor and Francis https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/open-question-argument/v-1.Google Scholar
McPherson, T. (2015d). “What Is at Stake in Debates among Normative Realists?” Noûs, 49(1): 123–46.Google Scholar
McPherson, T. (2018a). Authoritatively Normative Concepts. In Shafer-Landau, R., ed., Oxford Studies in Metaethics, vol. 13. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 253–77.Google Scholar
McPherson, T. (2018b). Naturalistic Moral Realism, Moral Rationalism, and Non-Fundamental Epistemology. In Jones, K. & Schroeter, F., eds., The Many Moral Rationalisms. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 187–209.Google Scholar
McPherson, T. & Plunkett, D. (2018). The Nature and Explanatory Ambitions of Metaethics. In McPherson, T. & Plunkett, D., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Metaethics. New York: Routledge, 1–25.Google Scholar
McPherson, T. & Plunkett, D. (2020). Conceptual Ethics and the Methodology of Ethical Inquiry. In Burgess, A., Cappelan, H., & Plunkett, D., eds., Conceptual Ethics and Conceptual Engineering. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 274–303.Google Scholar
McPherson, T. & Plunkett, D. (Forthcoming). Evaluation Turned on Itself. In R. Shafer-Landau, ed., Oxford Studies in Metaethics vol. 16. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moore, G. E. (1903). “The Refutation of Idealism.” Mind, 12(48): 433–53.Google Scholar
Moore, G. E. (1993 [1903]). Principia Ethica. Baldwin, T., ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Moore, G. E. (1959). Philosophical Papers. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Nietzsche, F. (1966). Beyond Good and Evil. Kaufmann, W., trans. & ed. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Olson, J. (2014). Moral Error Theory: History, Critique, Defence. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Olsson, E. (2017). Coherentist Theories of Epistemic Justification. In Zalta, E., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 Edition) https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/justep-coherence/.Google Scholar
Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pollock, J. L. & Cruz, J. (1999) Contemporary Theories of Knowledge. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D. Turri, J. & Carter, J. A. (2018). The Value of Knowledge. In Zalta, E., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2018 Edition) https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/knowledge-value/.Google Scholar
Pryor, J. (2000). “The Skeptic and the Dogmatist.” Noûs 34(4): 517–49.Google Scholar
Railton, P. (2003). Facts, Values, and Norms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. (1999a). The Independence of Moral Theory. In Collected Papers, Freeman, S., ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 286–302.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. (1999b). A Theory of Justice. Rev. ed. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.Google Scholar
Rosen, G. (2018). Metaphysical Relations in Metaethics. In McPherson, T. & Plunkett, D., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Metaethics. New York: Routledge, 151–69.Google Scholar
Ross, J. (2006). “Rejecting Ethical Deflationism.” Ethics 116(4): 742–68.Google Scholar
Ross, W. D. (2002 [1930]). The Right and the Good. Stratton-Lake, P., ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Royzman, E. B. Kim, K., & Leeman, R. F. (2015). “The Curious Tale of Julie and Mark: Unraveling the Moral Dumbfounding Effect.” Judgment and Decision Making, 10(4): 296–313.Google Scholar
Russell, B. [Bertrand]. (2009 [1948]). Human Knowledge. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Russell, B. [Bruce]. (2017). A Priori Justification and Knowledge. In Zalta, E., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2017 edition) https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/apriori/.Google Scholar
Rysiew, R. (2016). Epistemic Contextualism. In Zalta, E., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 edition) https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/contextualism-epistemology/.Google Scholar
Sampson, E. (2019). The Self-Undermining Arguments from Disagreement. In Shafer-Landau, R., ed., Oxford Studies in Metaethics, vol. 14. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 23–46.Google Scholar
Scanlon, T. M. (1998). What We Owe to Each Other. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.Google Scholar
Schechter, J. (2018). Explanatory Challenges in Metaethics. In McPherson, T. & Plunkett, D., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Metaethics. New York: Routledge, 443–58.Google Scholar
Schroeder, M. (2010). Non-Cognitivism in Ethics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sepielli, A. (2019). Decision-Making Under Moral Uncertainty. In Zimmerman, A., Jones, K., & Timmons, M., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Moral Epistemology. New York: Routledge, 508–21.Google Scholar
Shafer-Landau, R. (2003). Moral Realism: A Defence. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shah, N. (2010). “The Limits of Normative Detachment.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 110(3): 347–71.Google Scholar
Sidgwick, H. (1981 [1907]). Methods of Ethics, 7th ed. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Singer, S. (2005). “Ethics and Intuitions.” The Journal of Ethics, 9(3/4): 331–52.Google Scholar
Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2006). Moral Skepticisms. New York: OUPCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2008). Framing Moral Intuitions. In Sinnott-Armstrong, W., ed., Moral Psychology, vol. 2. The Cognitive Science of Morality: Intuition and Diversity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 47–76.Google Scholar
Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2011). An Empirical Challenge to Moral Intuitionism. In Hernandez, J. G., ed., The New Intuitionism. New York: Continuum, 11–28.Google Scholar
Sliwa, P. (2012). “In defense of Moral Testimony.” Philosophical Studies, 158 (2): 175–95.Google Scholar
Smith, M. (1994). The Moral Problem. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Smithies, D. (2019). The Epistemic Role of Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Star, D. (2008). “Moral Knowledge, Epistemic Externalism, and Intuitionism.” Ratio, 21(3): 329–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stojanovic, I. (2018). Metaethical Relativism. In McPherson, T. & Plunkett, D., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Metaethics. New York: Routledge, 119–32.Google Scholar
Street, S. (2006). “A Darwinian Dilemma for Realist Theories of Value.” Philosophical Studies, 127(1): 109–66.Google Scholar
Street, S. (2008). “Reply to Copp: Naturalism, Normativity, and the Varieties of Realism Worth Worrying About.” Philosophical Issues, 18(1): 207–28.Google Scholar
Thomson, J. J. (1985). “The Trolley Problem.” The Yale Law Journal, 94(6): 1395–1415.Google Scholar
Tobin, T. W.& Jaggar, A. M. (2013). “Naturalizing Moral Justification: Rethinking the Method of Moral Epistemology.” Metaphilosophy, 44(4): 409–39.Google Scholar
Turri, J., Alfano, M. & Greco, J. (2018). Virtue Epistemology. In Zalta, E., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/epistemology-virtue/.Google Scholar
Vavova, K. (2018). “Irrelevant Influences.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 96(1): 134–52.Google Scholar
Vayrynen, P. (2018). Doubts about Moral Perception. In Bergqvist, A. & Cowan, R., eds., Evaluative Perception. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 109–28.Google Scholar
Wedgwood, R. (2014). Moral Disagreement among Philosophers. In Bergmann, M. & Kain, P., eds., Challenges to Moral and Religious Belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 23–39.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. (2007). The Philosophy of Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wolff, R. P. (1970). In Defense of Anarchism. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Zagzebski, L. (2012). Epistemic Authority. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, A. (2010). Moral Epistemology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this element is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Epistemology and Methodology in Ethics
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Epistemology and Methodology in Ethics
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Epistemology and Methodology in Ethics
Available formats
×