Well-Functioning Daos and Moral Relativism

Well-Functioning Daos and Moral Relativism Hagop Sarkissian (bio) What are the nature status of moral norms? And what makes individuals abide by them? These central questions in metaethics. The first concerns domain—for example, whether it exists independently or groups think it. second bindingness practical clout norms—how feel impelled to them.1 In this article, I bring two distinct approaches these into dialogue with one another. comes from David Velleman, as outlined his Foundations for (Velleman 2013; 2nd ed. 2015). He characterizes normativity consisting a human drive understand be understood, function person among others one's community thereby communion them. This impels communities settle on ordinary ways being—a set shared action types doables which allows mutual interpretation (a prerequisite social life). functional view morality explains how norms emerge local contingent while nevertheless being genuinely binding members their communities. If is correct, argue, then seems have implications about adopted wellfunctioning moralities, must encourage conserve doables, conform them, interpret another charitably. explore topics sections article. Next, argue that similar approach can found classical Confucian texts, describe dao guiding way life exemplifies many features Velleman takes moralities general. conception li (rites / ritual propriety decorum) analogous Velleman's doables—a practices meant enable converge attitudes serve vehicles interpretation. And, given conceptions morality, both Confucians seem unable distinguish domain actions social, religious, aesthetic any systematic principled way. an Epilogue, consider might respond parallels drawn between approaches. provide error-theoretic account [End Page 230] explain why would (falsely) reject relativism, leverage pressure claim made possible, view, evaluate rank against criterion interpretability. I. Normativity Emergence Moralities Relativism, outlines version relativism accounting emergence diversity. goes something like this: Human beings toward sociality, "toward connection other people, persons, indeed simply person, insofar sociality essential personhood status" (p. 54).2 order live cooperation another, humans need "to engage … not only interpreting but also interpretable" (ibid). As result fundamental understanding, ontology doables—that is, ordinary. More accurately, they invent construct driven get along: Before people there has such thing ordinariness: ordinarily think, feel, act. That's where mores come in. People who interact thinking, feeling, acting will suggest plausible first-pass interpretations swiftly developing interactions. Their converge. 55) pervasive, comprising entire allowing express admiration, disapproval, acceptance, hostility, mental states. Mores compel, recommend, permit. within stated familiar categorical...