Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-55f67697df-sqlfs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-11T07:47:35.730Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Marius Baumann
Marius Baumann
Affiliation:
Universität Munchen
HTML view is not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Underdetermination of Moral Theories , pp. 223 - 233
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This content is Open Access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/cclicenses/

References

Adeel, M. A. (2010). How Do We Deal With Conflicts Between Different World Views If They Are Based on the Same Evidence? The Edwin Mellen Press.Google Scholar
Alexander, L. and Moore, M. (2016). Deontological Ethics. In Zalta, E. N., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Winter 2016 edition. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/ethics-deontological/. Google Scholar
Ariew, R. (2014). Pierre Duhem. In Zalta, E. N., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Fall 2014 edition. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/duhem/.Google Scholar
Atwell, J. E. (1969). Oldenquist on Rules and Consequences. Mind, 78(312):576–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Audi, R. (2008). Intuition, Inference, and Rational Disagreement in Ethics. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 11(5):475–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Audi, R. (2012). A Clarification and Defense of the Notion of Grounding. In Correia, F. and Schnieder, B., eds., Metaphysical Grounding: Understanding the Structure of Reality, pages 101–121. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Audi, R. (2015). Intuition and Its Place in Ethics. Journal of the American Philosophical Association, 1(1):57–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, D. (2021). If You’re Quasi-Explaining, You’re Quasi-Losing. Oxford Studies in Metaethics, 16:54–79.Google Scholar
Bales, R. E. (1971). Act Utilitarianism: Account of Right-making Characteristics or Decision-making Procedure? American Philosophical Quarterly, 8(1):257–265.Google Scholar
Baumann, M. (2018). Parfit, Convergence, and Underdetermination. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy, 13(3):191–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumann, M. (2019). Consequentializing and Underdetermination. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 97(3):511–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumann, M. (2021a). In Search of the Trinity: A Dilemma for Parfit’s Conciliatory Project. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 24(1):999–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumann, M. (2021b). No Fact of the Matter: The Case of Dirty Hands. Metaphilosophy, 52(3–4):466–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumann, M. (2022). Moral Underdetermination and a New Skeptical Challenge. Synthese, 200:1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben-Menahem, Y. (2016). Poincaré’s Impact on Twentieth-Century Philosophy of Science. HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science, 6(1):257–273.Google Scholar
Berker, S. (2018). The Unity of Grounding. Mind, 127(507):729–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berker, S. (2019). The Explanatory Ambitions of Moral Principles. Noûs, 53(4):904–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Betzler, M. and Schroth, J. (2019). The Good of Consequentialized Deontology. In Seidel, C., ed., Consequentialism: New Directions, New Problems, pages 115–135. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bliss, R. and Trogdon, K. (2016). Metaphysical Grounding. In Zalta, E. N., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Winter 2016 edition. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/grounding/.Google Scholar
Bonk, T. (2008). Underdetermination. An Essay on Evidence and the Limits of Natural Knowledge. Springer.Google Scholar
Bortolotti, L. (2008). An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Polity.Google Scholar
Boyd, N. M. and Bogen, J. (2021). Theory and Observation in Science. In Zalta, E. N., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Winter 2021 edition. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/science-theory-observation/.Google Scholar
Boyd, R. N. (1988). How to Be a Moral Realist. In Sayre-McCord, G., ed., Essays on Moral Realism, pages 181–228. Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Boyle, J. M. Jr. (1980). Toward Understanding the Principle of Double Effect. Ethics, 90(4):527–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandt, R. B. (1959). Ethical Theory: The Problems of Normative and Critical Ethics. Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Broome, J. (1991). Weighing Goods: Equality, Uncertainty and Time. Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brown, C. (2011). Consequentialize This. Ethics, 121(4):749–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bykvist, K. (2013). Derek Parfit, On What Matters. Ethical Perspectives, 20(2):343–349.Google Scholar
Carrier, M. (2011). Underdetermination as an Epistemological Test Tube: Expounding Hidden Values of the Scientific Community. Synthese, 180(2):189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, N. (2007). Why Be Hanged for Even a Lamb? In Monton, B., ed., Images of Empiricism: Essays on Science and Stances, With a Reply from Bas C. van Fraassen, pages 32–45. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chakravartty, A. (2017). Scientific Realism. In Zalta, E. N., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Summer 2017 edition. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/scientific-realism/.Google Scholar
Chappell, R. (2021). Parfit’s Ethics. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chappell, T. (2012). Climbing Which Mountain? A Critical Study of Derek Parfit, On What Matters. Philosophical Investigations, 35(2):167–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chrisman, M. (2016). What Is This Thing Called Metaethics? Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, D. (2007). Epistemology of Disagreement: The Good News. The Philosophical Review, 116(2):187–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, D. (2009). Disagreement as Evidence: The Epistemology of Controversy. Philosophy Compass, 4(5):756–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Churchland, P. M. (1985). The Ontological Status of Observables: In Praise of the Superempirical Virtues. In Churchland, P. M. and Hooker, C. A., eds., Images of Science: Essays on Realism and Empiricism, With a Reply from Bas C. van Fraassen, pages 35–47. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Copp, D. (1985). Considered Judgments and Moral Justification: Conservatism in Moral Theory. In Copp, D. and Zimmerman, D., eds., Morality, Reason and Truth: New Essays on the Foundations of Ethics, pages 141–168. Rowan & Allanheld.Google Scholar
Crisp, R. (2020). Are We Climbing the Same Mountain? Moral Theories, Moral Concepts, Moral Questions. ZEMO, 3(2):269–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummiskey, D. (1990). Kantian Consequentialism. Ethics, 100(3):586–615. (1996). Kantian Consequentialism. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dancy, J. (1981). On Moral Properties. Mind, 90(1):367–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dancy, J. (2004). Ethics Without Principles. Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniels, N. (1979). Wide Reflective Equilibrium and Theory Acceptance in Ethics. The Journal of Philosophy, 76(5):256–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darling, K. M. (2002). The Complete Duhemian Underdetermination Argument: Scientific Language and Practice. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 33(3):511–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwall, S. (2014). Agreement Matters: Critical Notice of Derek Parfit, On What Matters. Philosophical Review, 123(1):79–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dasgupta, S. (2017). Constitutive Explanation. Philosophical Issues, 27(1):74–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Depaul, M. R. (1987). Supervenience and Moral Dependence. Philosophical Studies, 51(3):425–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devitt, M. (2002). Underdetermination and Realism. Philosophical Issues, 12(1):26–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietrich, F. and List, C. (2017). What Matters and How It Matters: A Choice-Theoretic Representation of Moral Theories. Philosophical Review, 126(4):421–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dougherty, T. (2013). Agent-Neutral Deontology. Philosophical Studies, 163(2):527–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douven, I. (2008). Underdetermination. In Psillos, S. and Curd, M., eds., The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science, pages 292–301. Routledge.Google Scholar
Dreier, J. (1993). Structures of Normative Theories. The Monist, 76(1):22–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dreier, J. (2004). Meta-ethics and the Problem of Creeping Minimalism. Philosophical Perspectives, 18(1):23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dreier, J. (2011). In Defense of Consequentializing. In Timmons, M., ed., Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics, volume 1, pages 97–119. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driver, J. (1996). The Virtues and Human Nature. In Crisp, R., ed., How Should One Live? Essays on the Virtues, pages 111–129. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Duhem, P. (1906). La Théorie Physique: Son Objet et sa Structure. Marcel Riviera & Cie. English Translation by P. Wiener, The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory, Princeton University Press [1954].Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. (2011). Justice for Hedgehogs. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Einstein, A. (1926). Letter to Max Born. In Walker, B.M., ed., The Born-Einstein Letters. Walker and Company [1971].Google Scholar
Elson, L. (2016). Introduction. Ratio, 29(4):353–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emet, S. F. (2010). Agent-Relative Restrictions and Agent-Relative Value. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy, 4(3):1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enoch, D. (2019). How Principles Ground. Oxford Studies in Metaethics, 14:1–22.Google Scholar
Feldman, R. and Warfield, T. A. (2010). Disagreement. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, K. (1994). Essence and Modality: The Second Philosophical Perspectives Lecture. Philosophical Perspectives, 8(1):1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, K. (2001). The Question of Realism. Philosophers’ Imprint, 1(1):1–30.Google Scholar
Fine, K. (2012). Guide to Ground. In Correia, F. and Schnieder, B., eds., Metaphysical Grounding, pages 37–80. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanagan, O. (2006). Varieties of Naturalism. In Clayton, P. and Simpson, Z., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Science, pages 430–452. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fogal, D. and Risberg, O. (2020). The Metaphysics ofMoral Explanations. Oxford Studies in Metaethics, 15:170–194.Google Scholar
Foot, P. (1985). Utilitarianism and the Virtues. Mind, 94(374):169–209.Google Scholar
Forcehimes, A. T. and Semrau, L. (2020). Relationship Sensitive Consequentialism Is Regrettable. Social Theory and Practice, 46(2):257–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forschler, S. (2013). Kantian and Consequentialist Ethics: The Gap Can Be Bridged. Metaphilosophy, 44(1–2):88–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankena, W. K. (1973). Ethics. Prentice-Hall, second edition.Google Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, P. (2021). Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. University of Chicago Press, second edition.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, S. G. (1976). Introduction. In Harding, S. G., ed., Can Theories Be Refuted?Essays on the Duhem–Quine Thesis, pages ix–xxi. D. Reidel Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hare, R. M. (1952). The Language of Morals. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hare, R. M. (1997). Could Kant Have Been a Utilitarian? In Hare, R. M., ed., Sorting Out Ethics, pages 147–165. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Harman, G. (1965). The Inference to the Best Explanation. Philosophical Review, 74(1):88–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harman, G. (1977). The Nature of Morality: An Introduction to Ethics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. and Oppenheim, P. (1948). Studies in the Logic of Explanation. Philosophy of Science, 15(2):135–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herman, B. (1993). The Practice of Moral Judgment. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Herman, B. (2011). A Mismatch of Methods. In Scheffler, S., ed., On What Matters, Volume Two, pages 83–115. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoefer, C. and Rosenberg, A. (1994). Empirical Equivalence, Underdetermination, and Systems of the World. Philosophy of Science, 61(4):592–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooker, B. (2000). Ideal Code, Real World: A Rule-Consequentialist Theory of Morality. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hooker, B. (2010). On What Matters. The Philosopher's Magazine, 50:66–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooker, B. (2020). Parfit’s Final Arguments in Normative Ethics. In McMahan, J. and Campbell, T., eds., Essays in Honour of Derek Parfit: Normative Ethics and Personal Identity, pages 1–21. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Horwich, P. (1991). On the Nature and Norms of Theoretical Commitment. Philosophy of Science, 58(1):1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, C. (2021). Consequentialists Must Kill. Ethics, 131(1):727–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huemer, M. (2008). Revisionary Intuitionism. Social Philosophy and Policy, 25(1):368–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurka, T. (2011). Common Themes from Sidgwick to Ewing. In Hurka, T., ed., Underivative Duty: British Moral Philosophers from Sidgwick to Ewing, pages 6–25. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurley, P. (2013). Consequentializing and Deontologizing: Clogging the Conse-quentialist Vacuum. In Timmons, M., ed., Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics, volume 3, pages 123–153. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurley, P. (2014). Comments on Douglas Portmore’s Commonsense Consequentialism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 88(1):225–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurley, P. (2017). Why Consequentialism’s ‘Compelling Idea’ is Not. Social Theory and Practice, 43(1):29–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyce, R. (2005). Moral Fictionalism. In Kalderon, M. E., ed., Fictionalism in Metaphysics, pages 287–313. Oxford University Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kagan, S. (1989). The Limits of Morality. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Kalderon, M. E. (2005). Introduction. In Kalderon, M. E., ed., Fictionalism in Metaphysics, pages 1–13. Oxford University Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalokairinou, E. (2011). From Meta-Ethics to Ethics: An Overview of R. M. Hare’s Moral Philosophy. Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kamm, F. M. (2000). Nonconsequentialism. In LaFolette, H., ed., The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory, pages 205–226. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kelly, T. (2005). The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement. In Gendler, T. S. and Hawthorne, J., eds., Oxford Studies in Epistemology, volume 1, pages 167–196. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1989). Explanatory Unification and the Causal Structure of the World. In Kitcher, P. and Salmon, W., eds., Scientific Explanation (Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume 13), pages 410–505. University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. (2001). Real Realism: The Galilean Strategy. The Philosophical Review, 110(2):151–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kosso, P. (1992). Reading the Book of Nature. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kovacs, D. M. (2023). Varieties of Grounding Skepticism. The Monist, 106:301–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroon, F. (2011). Fictionalism in Metaphysics. Philosophy Compass, 6(11):786–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kukla, A. (1998). Studies in Scientific Realism. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kukla, A. (2001). Theoreticity, Underdetermination, and the Disregard for Bizarre Scientific Hypotheses. Philosophy of Science, 68(1):21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, J. (1952). Ethics and Explanation. The Journal of Philosophy, 49(15):499–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladyman, J. (2002). Understanding Philosophy of Science. Routledge.Google Scholar
Larmore, C. (2013). Morals and Metaphysics. European Journal of Philosophy, 21(4):665–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laskowski, N. (2018). Parfit, Derek. On What Matters. Vol. 3. Ethics, 128(2):496–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, L. (1990). Demystifying Underdetermination. In Savage, C. W., ed., Scientific Theories, pages 267–297. University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. and Leplin, J. (1991). Empirical Equivalence and Underdetermination. The Journal of Philosophy, 88(9):449–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, L. and Leplin, J. (1993). Determination Underdeterred: Reply to Kukla. Analysis, 53(1):8–16.Google Scholar
Lazar, S. (2017). Deontological Decision Theory and Agent-Centered Options. Ethics, 127(3):579–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazari-Pawlowska, I. (1991). The Deductive Model in Ethics. In Geach, P., ed., Logic and Ethics, pages 225–240. Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Lazari-Radek, K. and Singer, P. (2016). Parfit on Objectivity and “The Pro-foundest Problem of Ethics”. In Singer, P., ed., Does Anything Really Matter? Essays on Parfit on Objectivity, pages 279–296. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leibowitz, U. D. (2009). Moral Advice and Moral Theory. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, 146(3):349–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leibowitz, U. D. (2011). Scientific Explanation and Moral Explanation. Noûs, 45(3):472–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leibowitz, U. D. and Sinclair, N. (2016). Introduction: Explanation in Ethics and Mathematics. In Leibowitz, U. D. and Sinclair, N., eds., Explanation in Ethics and Mathematics, pages 1–20. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lillehammer, H. (2011). The Epistemology of Ethical Intuitions. Philosophy, 86(2):175–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Louise, J. (2004). Relativity of Value and the Consequentialist Umbrella. The Philosophical Quarterly, 54(217):518–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackie, J. L. (1977). Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. Penguin.Google Scholar
Matheson, J. (2015). Disagreement and Epistemic Peers. Oxford Handbooks Online.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, G. (1962). The Ontological Status of Theoretical Entities. In Feigl, H. and Maxwell, G., eds., Scientific Explanation, Space, and Time: Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, pages 3–27. University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
McKeever, S. and Ridge, M. (2006). Principled Ethics: Generalism as a Regulative Idea. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNaughton, D. and Rawling, P. (1991). Agent-Relativity and the Doing–Happening Distinction. Philosophical Studies, 63(2):167–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, J. S. (1871). Utilitarianism. Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer. Edited by R. Crisp, Oxford University Press [1998].Google Scholar
Moore, G. E. (1942). A Reply to My Critics. In Schilpp, P. A., ed., The Philosophy of G. E. Moore, pages 535–677. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, S. (2009). Can There be a Kantian Consequentialism? In Suikkanen, J. and Cottingham, J., eds., Essays on Derek Parfit’s On What Matters, pages 39–60. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Nebel, J. (2012). A Counterexample to Parfit’s Rule Consequentialism. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy, 6(2):1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Needham, P. (2000). Duhem and Quine. Dialectica, 54(2):109–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, C. T. (2010). Autonomy, Understanding, and Moral Disagreement. Philosophical Topics, 39(2):111–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, J. D. (2008). Must Evidence Underdetermine Theory? In Carrier, M., Howard, D., and Kourany, A., eds., The Challenge of the Social and the Pressure of Practice, pages 17–44. University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Okasha, S. (2002). Underdetermination, Holism and the Theory/Data Distinction. The Philosophical Quarterly, 52(208):303–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oldenquist, A. (1966). Rules and Consequences. Mind, 75(298):180–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otsuka, M. (2009). The Kantian Argument for Consequentialism. In Suikkanen, J. and Cottingham, J., eds., Essays on Derek Parfit’s On What Matters, pages 61–78. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and Persons. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Parfit, D. (2011a). On What Matters, Volume One. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Parfit, D. (2011b). On What Matters, Volume Two. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Parfit, D. (2017a). On What Matters, Volume Three. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parfit, D. (2017b). Responses. In Kirchin, S., ed., Reading Parfit: On What Matters. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, S. (2009). Philosophical Responses to Underdetermination in Science. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 40(1):115–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, M. (2013). The Dimensions of Consequentialism: Ethics, Equality and Risk. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettit, P. (1997). The Consequentialist Perspective. In Baron, M., Pettit, P., and Slote, M., eds., Three Methods of Ethics, pages 92–174. Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pietsch, W. (2012). The Underdetermination Debate: How Lack of History Leads to Bad Philosophy. In Mauskopf, S. and Schmaltz, T., eds., Integrating History and Philosophy of Science, pages 83–106. Springer.Google Scholar
Portmore, D. W. (2005). Combining Teleological Ethics with Evaluator Relativism: A Promising Result. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 86(1):95–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portmore, D. W. (2007). Consequentializing Moral Theories. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 88(1):39–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portmore, D. W. (2009). Consequentializing. Philosophy Compass, 4(2):329–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portmore, D. W. (2011). Commonsense Consequentialism: Wherein Morality Meets Rationality. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portmore, D. W. (2014). Précis: Commonsense Consequentialism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 88(1):209–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portmore, D. W. (2022). Consequentializing. In Zalta, E. N., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Fall 2022 edition. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2022/entries/consequentializing/.Google Scholar
Psillos, S. (1999). Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth. Routledge.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (2004). Ethics Without Ontology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1951). Two Dogmas of Empiricism. Philosophical Review, 60(1):20–43. Reprinted in from a Logical Point of View, (1953).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word and Object. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1966a). On Mental Entities. In The Ways of Paradox and Other Essays, pages 208–214. Random House.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1966b). Posits and Reality. In The Ways of Paradox and Other Essays, pages 233–241. Random House.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1966c). The Scope and Language of Science. In The Ways of Paradox and Other Essays, pages 215–232. Random House.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1969). Speaking of Objects. In Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, volume 31, pages 5–22. Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1975). On Empirically Equivalent Systems of the World. Erkenntnis, 9(3):313–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1981). Empirical Content. In Theories and Things, pages 24–30. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1991). Two Dogmas in Retrospect. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 21(3):265–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J. (1951). Outline of a Decision Procedure for Ethics. Philosophical Review, 60(2):177–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J. (1974). The Independence of Moral Theory. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 48(1):5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridge, M. (2009). Climb Every Mountain? In Suikkanen, J. and Cottingham, J., eds., Essays on Derek Parfit’s On What Matters, pages 79–96. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Roeser, S. (2006). A Particularist Epistemology: Affectual Intuitionism’. Acta Analytica, 21(1):33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosen, G. (1994). What is Constructive Empiricism? Philosophical Studies, 74(1):143–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosen, G. (2005). Problems in the History of Fictionalism. In Kalderon, M. E., ed., Fictionalism in Metaphysics, pages 14–64. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosen, G. (2017). What is a Moral Law? Oxford Studies in Metaethics, 12:135–159.Google Scholar
Ross, J. (2009). Should Kantians be Consequentialists? In Suikkanen, J. and Cottingham, J., eds., Essays on Derek Parfit’s On What Matters, pages 144–153. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ross, W. D. (1930). The Right and the Good. Clarendon Press. Edited by P. Stratton-Lake, Clarendon Press [2002].Google Scholar
Rowland, R. (2017). The Epistemology of Moral Disagreement. Philosophy Compass, 12(2):1–16.Google Scholar
Sachs, B. (2010). Consequentialism’s Double-Edged Sword. Utilitas, 22(3):258–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scanlon, T. M. (1998). What We Owe to Each Other. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Scanlon, T. M. (2003). Rawls on Justification. In Freeman, S., ed., The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, pages 139–167. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Scanlon, T. M. (2011). How I Am Not a Kantian. In Scheffler, S., On What Matters, Volume Two, pages 116–139. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scanlon, T. M. (2014). Being Realistic About Reasons. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheffler, S. (1982). The Rejection of Consequentialism: A Philosophical Investigation of the Considerations Underlying Rival Moral Conceptions. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Schroeder, M. (2007). Teleology, Agent-Relative Value, and ‘Good’. Ethics, 117(2):265–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, S. A. (2017). Consequentializing and its Consequences. Philosophical Studies, 174(6):1475–1497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. (1982). Rights and Agency. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 11(1):3–39.Google Scholar
Sen, A. (1983). Evaluator Relativity and Consequential Evaluation. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 12(2):113–132.Google Scholar
Setiya, K. (2018). Must Consequentialists Kill? The Journal of Philosophy, 115(2):92–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shafer-Landau, R. (2012). The Fundamentals of Ethics. Oxford University Press, second edition.Google Scholar
Shaver, R. (2011). The Birth of Deontology. In Hurka, T., ed., Underivative Duty: British Moral Philosophers from Sidgwick to Ewing, pages 126–145. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidgwick, H. (1981). The Methods of Ethics (seventh edition). Hackett.Google Scholar
Singer, P. (2011). One Mountain. The Time Literary Supplement (May 20).Google Scholar
Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2015). Consequentialism. In Zalta, E. N., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Winter 2015 edition. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2015/entries/consequentialism/.Google Scholar
Sklar, L. (1975). Methodological Conservatism. The Philosophical Review, 84(3):374–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skorupski, J. (2018). Review: On What Matters, Volume Three. Mind, 127(506):602–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, B. (2010). Particularism and the Space ofMoral Reasons. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Smith, H. M. (1988). Making Moral Decisions. Noûs, 22(1):89–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, H. M. (2012). Using Moral Principles to Guide Decisions. Philosophical Issues, 22(1):369–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, M. (2009). Two Kinds of Consequentialism. Philosophical Issues, 19(1):257–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorell, T. (2000). Politics, Power, and Partisanship. In Rynard, P. and Shugarman, D. P., eds., Cruelty and Deception: The Controversy Over Dirty Hands in Politics, pages 67–86. Broadview Press.Google Scholar
Stanford, P. K. (2001). Refusing the Devil’s Bargain: What Kind of Underdetermination Should We Take Seriously? Philosophy of Science, 68(3):1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanford, P. K. (2006). Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanford, P. K. (2017). Underdetermination of Scientific Theory. In Zalta, E. N., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Winter 2017 edition. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/scientific-underdetermination/.Google Scholar
Stangl, R. (2020). Review: Derek Parfit, On What Matters: Volume III. Utilitas, 32(4):1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stratton-Lake, P. (2011). Eliminativism About Derivative Prima Facie Duties. In Hurka, T., ed., Underivative Duty: British Moral Philosophers from Sidgwick to Ewing, pages 146–165. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stratton-Lake, P. (2016). Intuition, Self-Evidence, and Understanding. In Shafer Landau, R., ed., Oxford Studies in Metaethics, volume 11, pages 29–44. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Suikkanen, J. (2009a). Consequentialism, Constraints and The Good-Relative-To: A Reply to Mark Schroeder. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy, 3(1):1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suikkanen, J. (2009b). Introduction. In Suikkanen, J. and Cottingham, J., eds., Essays on Derek Parfit’s On What Matters, pages 1–20. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Suikkanen, J. (2014). This is Ethics: An Introduction. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Suikkanen, J. (2021). Ethical Theories as Methods of Ethics. In Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics, volume 11, pages 247–269. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tännsjö, T. (2002). Understanding Ethics: An Introduction to Moral Theory. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Tännsjö, T. (2006). Understanding Through Explanation in Ethics. Theoria, 72(3):213–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tenenbaum, S. (2014). The Perils of Earnest Consequentializing. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 88(1):233–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tersman, F. (1998). Crispin Wright on Moral Disagreement. The Philosophical Quarterly, 48(192):359–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timmermann, J. (2005). Why Kant Could Not Have Been a Utilitarian. Utilitas, 17(3):243–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timmons, M. (2013). Introduction. In Timmons, M., ed., Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics, volume 3, pages 1–12. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trogdon, K. (2013). An Introduction to Grounding. In Hoeltje, M., Schnieder, B., and Steinberg, A., eds., Varieties of Dependence, pages 97–122. Philosophia Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tropman, E. (2014). Varieties of Moral Intuitionism. Journal of Value Inquiry, 48(2):177–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tulodziecki, D. (2012). Epistemic Equivalence and Epistemic Incapacitation. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 63(2):313–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tulodziecki, D. (2013). Underdetermination, Methodological Practices, and Realism. Synthese, 190(17):3731–3750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallentyne, P. (1988). Gimmicky Representations of Moral Theories. Metaphilosophy, 19(3–4):253–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dyck, M. (2007). Constructive Empiricism and the Argument from Underdetermination. In Monton, B., ed., Images of Empiricism: Essays on Science and Stances, With a Reply from Bas C. van Fraassen, pages 11–31. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (1980). The Scientific Image. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (2002). The Empirical Stance. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. (2007). From a View of Science to a New Empiricism. In Monton, B., ed., Images of Empiricism: Essays on Science and Stances, with a Reply from Bas C. van Fraassen, pages 337–383. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Väyrynen, P. (2006). Ethical Theories and Moral Guidance. Utilitas, 18(3):291–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Väyrynen, P. (2013). Grounding and Normative Explanation. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, 87(1):155–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walzer, M. (1973). Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 2(2):160–180.Google Scholar
Woodard, C. (2013). The Common Structure of Kantianism and Act- Utilitarianism. Utilitas, 25(2):246–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, P. A. (2001). Introduction. In Woodward, P. A., ed., The Doctrine of Double Effect: Philosophers Debate a Controversial Moral Principle, pages 1–4. University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Wright, C. (1992). Truth and Objectivity. Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, C. (1995). Truth in Ethics. Ratio, 8(3):209–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] 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.

  • Bibliography
  • Marius Baumann, Universität Munchen
  • Book: The Underdetermination of Moral Theories
  • Online publication: 14 March 2025
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009492454.014
Available formats
×

Save book 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.

  • Bibliography
  • Marius Baumann, Universität Munchen
  • Book: The Underdetermination of Moral Theories
  • Online publication: 14 March 2025
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009492454.014
Available formats
×

Save book 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.

  • Bibliography
  • Marius Baumann, Universität Munchen
  • Book: The Underdetermination of Moral Theories
  • Online publication: 14 March 2025
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009492454.014
Available formats
×