Singa Behrens

Some of the core fields of philosophy –including moral philosophy, value theory, and epistemology– are, at their heart, concerned with normative questions: questions about what is good or bad, right or wrong, justified or unjustified. These questions concern the content of judgements that human beings are constantly making and that structure our way of thinking, feeling, and acting. But while there is wide agreement in contemporary philosophy that normative judgements form a unified and important category of human thought, the nature of normativity itself remains a contested issue. One influential hypothesis is that normativity is best understood in terms of reasons – that is, the factors that count in favour of or against actions or attitudes. This Reasons-First Approach holds significant promise, but it remains underdeveloped and faces pressing challenges. This volume brings together leading scholars across philosophical subfields to systematically explore and assess the Reasons-First framework.

It is often taken for granted that right‐makers, that is, the things that make something—say, an action—right, do so by explaining why it is right. This view can be spelled out in terms of metaphysical ground: right‐making just is grounding of rightness facts. In this paper, I present three challenges to this view and argue that no purely ground‐based account of right‐making is fully satisfactory. Instead, I defend a novel version of a reasons‐based account, according to which right‐makers are grounds that ground in virtue of being a normative reason. This reasons‐based account, I shall argue, provides a unified solution to the challenges outlined and entails nuanced distinctions that alternative accounts brush aside. I show that my account is applicable to value‐making relations on the assumption that value is not prior to normative reasons. The discussion thus reveals a novel argument for buck‐passing accounts of value, that is, the view that value can be explained in terms of normative reasons.

While the Is-Ought Gap has recently been a topic of growing interest, most contributions are firmly fixed on logical, often quite technical accounts of the autonomy thesis. This book defends two complementary autonomy theses-a modal and ground-based thesis-that provide a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of the nature of normativity. The autonomy thesis is often motivated by claims about the nature of the normative domain and its categorical difference from the non-normative domain. This book develops two novel interpretations of the autonomy thesis, one based on the notion of grounding and the other based on a notion of logical-semantic entailment, developed within a framework of truthmaker semantics. Together these accounts capture best the informal idea that we cannot 'get' something normative from the non-normative. The proposal is based on an analysis of what it means to say that certain propositional content parts are relevant to the instantiation of entailment and grounding relations. Moreover, the book relates the autonomy debate to other important metaethical debates, and it offers a more explicit account of the theoretical commitments of an autonomist position. Finally, it develops simple and elegant formal equivalents of the proposed autonomy theses which facilitate the evaluation of structurally complex proposed counterexamples, which have impeded a substantive autonomy debate. The Autonomy of Normativity will appeal to researchers and graduate students working in metaethics, metaphysics, and philosophical logic"-- Provided by publisher.

In this paper, I present and defend a novel way for non-naturalists to account for the sui generis status of normative facts, which is consistent with the claim that contingent normative facts obtain in virtue of non-normative facts. According to what I call unsupplemented partial ground approach, non-derivative normative facts have non-normative partial grounds, but are not fully grounded in any collection of facts. This view entails that an explanatory gap separates the normative from the non-normative domain. I argue that this account provides non-naturalists with a metaphysically coherent response to the challenge of accounting for explanatory dependence relations between two domains while positing metaphysical discontinuity (explanatory challenge), and avoids serious objections that alternative non-naturalist accounts face. Moreover, I show that the unsupplemented partial ground approach is an attractive option for the popular Reasons-First approach, which is often, but I argue prematurely, considered a particularly promising account for non-naturalists.

In a variety of recent debates, philosophers have found it useful to appeal to a notion of difference-making. Metaphysicians have appealed to difference-making in analysing aspects of relations such as causation and grounding. Following influential work by Michael Strevens, philosophers of science have argued that causal factors are explanatorily relevant only if they make a difference to a given event. Finally, the notion of difference-making has been prominent in debates about free will and responsibility. In the course of these debates, several competing analyses of difference-making have been proposed. Thus far, however, there has been little interaction between these different debates. This special issue aims to bring together recent approaches to difference-making from several different angles in relation to a variety of hotly debated topics.

Moral error theory has been criticized on formal grounds for lacking a coherent semantics of moral sentences. In this paper, I provide a truthmaker-based semantics of moral sentences that is compatible with moral error theory. The hyperintensional account draws attention to the exact truth- and falsemakers of moral propositions. Error theorists must assume that propositions that have only moral truthmakers have at least one non-moral falsemaker. A central consequence of the discussion is that moral error theory is compatible with a classical logic of moral notions.

The autonomy thesis is the claim that one cannot get a normative statement from purely descriptive statements. But despite its intuitive appeal a precise formulation of the thesis has remained elusive. In a recent paper, Maguire makes the promising suggestion that the thesis should be understood in terms of ground. But Maguire’s formulation, I argue, is based on controversial taxonomic assumptions that make the autonomy thesis into a non-substantive claim. I develop an alternative ground-based formulation of the autonomy thesis that appeals to the notion of normative relevance, which is in turn understood using the tools of truthmaker semantics. This formulation of the autonomy thesis avoids well-known counterexamples to other formulations and has significant advantages over Maguire’s formulation.