No description available.

Dans cette thèse, je propose une lecture renouvelée de l’itinéraire philosophique d’Hilary Putnam concernant la problématique du réalisme. Mon propos consiste essentiellement à défendre l’idée selon laquelle il y aurait beaucoup plus de continuité, voir une certaine permanence, dans la manière dont Putnam a envisagé la question du réalisme tout au long de sa carrière. Pour arriver à une telle interprétation de son oeuvre, j’ai essentiellement suivi deux filons. D’abord, dans un ouvrage du début des années 2000, Ethics without Ontology (2004), Putnam établit un parallèle entre sa conception de l’objectivité en philosophie des mathématiques et en éthique. Le deuxième filon vient d’une remarque qu’il fait, dans l’introduction du premier volume de ses Philosophical Papers (1975), affirmant que la forme de réalisme qu’il présupposait dans ses travaux des années 1960-1970 était la même que celle qu’il défendait en philosophie des mathématiques et qu’il souhaitait défendre ultérieurement en éthique. En suivant le premier filon, il est possible de mieux cerner la conception générale que se fait Putnam de l’objectivité, mais pour comprendre en quel sens une telle conception de l’objectivité n’est pas propre aux mathématiques, mais constitue en réalité une conception générale de l’objectivité, il faut suivre le second filon, selon lequel Putnam aurait endossé, durant les années 1960-1970, le même type de réalisme en philosophie des sciences et en éthique qu’en philosophie des mathématiques. Suivant cette voie, on se rend compte qu’il existe une similarité structurelle très forte entre le premier réalisme de Putnam et son réalisme interne. Après avoir établi la parenté entre le premier et le second réalisme de Putnam, je montre, en m’inspirant de commentaires du philosophe ainsi qu’en comparant le discours du réalisme interne au discours de son réalisme actuel (le réalisme naturel du commun des mortels), que, contrairement à l’interprétation répandue, il existe une grande unité au sein de sa conception du réalisme depuis les années 1960 à nos jours. Je termine la thèse en montrant comment mon interprétation renouvelée de l’itinéraire philosophique de Putnam permet de jeter un certain éclairage sur la forme de réalisme que Putnam souhaite défendre en éthique. / In this dissertation I propose a new reading of the philosophical itinerary of Hilary Putnam on the matter of realism. In essence, my purpose is to argue that there is much more continuity than is normally understood, and even a degree of permanence, in the way in which Putnam has viewed the question of realism throughout his career. To arrive at this interpretation of Putnam I essentially followed two veins in his work. First, in a volume published in the early 2000s entitled Ethics without Ontology (2004), Putnam establishes a parallel between his conception of objectivity in the philosophy of mathematics and in ethics. The second vein comes from a comment he made in the introduction to the first volume of his Philosophical Papers (1975) to the effect that the kind of realism he presupposed in his work of the 1960s and 70s was the same that he upheld in the philosophy of mathematics and wished to argue for at a later date in ethics. Following the first vein makes it possible to better grasp Putnam’s general conception of objectivity, but in order to understand how such a conception of objectivity is not unique to mathematics but is instead a general conception of objectivity one must follow the second vein. There, in the 1960s and 70s, Putnam adopted the same kind of realism in the philosophy of science and in ethics as he had in the philosophy of mathematics. Following this path, one realises that there exists a very strong structural similarity between Putnam’s first realism and his internal realism. After establishing this connection between Putnam’s first and second realism, I draw on Putnam’s remarks and compare the internal realism discourse to his current realism (the natural realism of ordinary people) to demonstrate, contrary to the prevalent interpretation, that there has been a great deal of consistency in his conception of realism from the 1960s to the present day. I conclude the dissertation by demonstrating how my new interpretation of Putnam’s philosophical itinerary makes it possible to shed light on the kind of realism he wishes to champion in ethics.

The author has attempted a dubbleedged purpose, as indicated by the title. The author firstly deals with Pereboom; begining with his so-called ‘wild coincidence’-argument, by which Pereboom claims agent-causation to be unlikely. The author argues that this argument lacks both scope and strenght. The author then deals with the question of compatiblity between physics and agent-causation as related to Pereboom’s basic problematization; whether agent-causation would or would not diverge from what is expected (from any other event) given our best physical theories. This results in a strong criticism against Pereboom’s whole position, and a positive argument for agent-causation. After the first purpose is achieved, the author turns to the purpose indicated by the subtitle. The author presents a general criticism against the field of metaethics concerning the question of free will. The author also makes suggestions for a possible solution. / Författaren har, som titeln indikerar, tagit på sig ett tveeggat problem. Först hanterar författaren Pereboom; och börjar med hans så kallade ‘wild coincidence’-argument, med vilket Pereboom hävdar att agentkausalitet är osannlik. Författaren menar att detta argument saknar både omfång och styrka. Författaren hanterar sedan frågan om kompatibilitet mellan fysik och agentkausalitet, så som den är relaterad till Perebooms grundläggande problematisering; huruvida agentkausalitet skulle eller inte skulle avvika från vad som vi förväntar oss (givet någon annan händelse) från våra bästa fysiska teorier. Detta resulterar i en stark kritik mot Perebooms hela position, och ett positivt argument för agentkausalitet. Efter att det första syftet är avklarat, så vänder sig författaren till undertitelns syfte. Författaren presenterar en generell kritik mot fältet metaetik avseende frågan om fri vilja. Författaren föreslår även en möjlig lösning på problemet.

[pt] O tema da normatividade desde sempre foi tido como misterioso. Muitas explicações foram dadas sobre o fenômeno em diversos âmbitos do saber, embora nenhuma em definitivo. Quando se trata da normatividade jurídica não é diferente. Com o objetivo de trazer novas luzes sobre o nebuloso assunto, o ponto de partida da presente investigação é o conceito de afirmações internas do direito, tal como formulado por Herbert L. A. Hart. Por meio de uma análise sociolinguística, o autor propõe que tais enunciados comprometidos com o direito sejam vistos como expressões da aceitação de certas regras. No entanto, o autor não vai muito além em pontos importantes e alguns questionamentos surgem tanto sobre a melhor leitura de certos conceitos na obra de Hart, quanto em relação a real capacidade de sua teoria dar conta do tema. Há evidências nos escritos do autor que permitem dizer que a sua proposta é bastante semelhante à ideia de expressivismo de normas, tal como formulado por Allan Gibbard no campo da metaética. Essa linha teórica aparece como uma versão sofisticada de não-cognitivismo e, portanto, entende que os termos normativos são geralmente utilizados na linguagem ordinária para expressar um estado conativo, um estado mental diferente de uma crença, e que, portanto, não possui aptidão de verdade. Pretende-se demonstrar que tal postura, expressivista, é bastante atraente para o filósofo do direito, pois consegue explicar tanto as afirmações internas do direito como o elo implícito com a ideia de normatividade. Além disso, essa perspectiva é capaz de responder às críticas que teóricos rivais (cognitivistas) formularam sobre a construção conceitual hartiana. Por meio da análise da superação por parte dos autores expressivistas de argumentos tradicionais do campo da metaética é possível deixar mais sólida a posição dentro da teoria do direito, bem como transferir o ônus argumentativo para os oponentes da posição. Por fim, será sugerida interpretação sobre o mecanismo psicológico e social por detrás do expressivismo de normas. O recente corpo de evidência científica parece fornecer uma licença para o otimismo em favor do expressivismo em relação à capacidade de se desvendar o mistério da normatividade. / [en] Normativity has Always been taken as something mysterious. Many explanations from a range of different areas were given about this phenomenon, though, no definitive one. Legal normativity is no different. Aiming to bring new lights to this cloudy subject, the starting point of the present investigation is Hebert L. A. Hart s concept of internal legal statements. Through a sociolinguistic analysis, the author claims that such statements committed with the law are to be seen as expressions of rule s acceptance. Nevertheless, Hart does not go further and a lot of relevant points and questions arise both about the best way to read his work and on the real explanatory power of his theory. There are evidences in his writings that allow us to read his theory in a very similar way to Allan Gibbard s metaethics one. This line of though seems to be a sophisticated version of a non-cognitivism and, therefore, sees normative terms as used to express conative states of mind. These mental states are different from a belief and hence cannot have truth aptness. We intend to show that such theoretical posture, expressivist, is very alluring for the legal philosopher, since it can explain the internal legal claims and its implicit relationship with normativity. Further, this perspective is capable of answering critics posed by cognitivists about Hart s conceptual work. By means of an analysis of how expressivism can answer traditional metaethical questions, it is possible to make the legal expressivist position even more solid, and to switch the argumentative burden to opponent side of the dispute. Lastly, we will indicate an interpretation of a social and psychological background mechanism to norm expressivism. The recent body of scientific evidence provides a license for optimism in favor of expressism s ability to unveil the mystery of normativity.

This paper concerns the semantic branch of meta-ethics, and examines a version of so called semantic pluralism advocated by Michael Gill. Briefly put, Gill suggests that ordinary people’s usage of moral terms is rather messy in the sense that the meaning of moral terms can vary not only between different people, but also for one and the same person in different contexts. Such variability in word-meaning is explained by his assumption that people’s meta-ethical commitments are part of their moral thought and language, which is to say that their meta-ethical commitments have implications for the meaning of moral terms. In this paper I pursue two objectives. The first is exegetical and aim to clarify how Gill’s semantic pluralism in general, and his Indeterminacy- and Variability theses in particular, are intended to be understood—specifically in relation to the cognitivist/non-cognitivist debate. The second objective is argumentative. I first present and evaluate an objection to Gill’s semantic pluralism from Walter Sinnott-Armstrong who argue that Gill’s Variability thesis implies that interlocutors with different meta-ethical commitments are talking past each other rather than having genuine first order moral agreements and disagreements. I then argue that a similar problem occurs also for certain second order moral disagreements, particularly those in which moral terms are used rather than mentioned. I then argue that this is problematic not only on independent grounds, but also because it is inconsistent with the very assumptions Gill makes to support his view. My argument therefore appears forceful by Gill’s own lights. Combined, Sinnott-Armstrong’s objection and my own leads me to conclude that Gill’s semantic pluralism does not look promising.

Notre pratique morale ordinaire, l’éthique normative ainsi que l’éthique appliquée présupposent que nos questions morales sont décidables non arbitrairement. Autrement dit, ces activités présupposent qu’il existe des réponses non arbitraires à nos questions morales. Le présent travail de recherche vise à questionner ce présupposé en explorant les réponses des trois principales familles de théories métaéthiques, soient le réalisme moral, l’antiréalisme moral et le constructivisme métaéthique, à la question « Les questions morales sont-elles décidables de manière non arbitraire? ». Notre but n’est pas de déterminer quelle théorie métaéthique est la meilleure, mais plutôt d’évaluer la possibilité que les questions morales soient décidables non arbitrairement. Nous défendrons que le réalisme moral semble compatible avec la décidabilité des questions morales et qu’au contraire, l’antiréalisme ainsi que le constructivisme semblent plus difficilement compatibles avec la décidabilité morale. Nous défendrons également que l’indécidabilité des questions morales, un problème pratique engendré par ces cadres métaéthiques, implique une aporie bien gênante. Si a priori on admet que ces trois familles de théories métaéthiques sont équiprobables, on pourrait alors affirmer grossièrement que nous avons deux chances sur trois de faire face, en pratique, au problème de l’indécidabilité morale et donc à l’aporie qu’elle implique. Cela justifiera pour nous l’intérêt d’explorer la possibilité d’une solution à cette aporie. Nous proposerons donc l’hypothèse selon laquelle la pratique du questionnement moral de manière aporétique, considérée comme une activité non cognitive, implique une certaine manière d’être qui n’est pas arbitraire. / Our ordinary moral practice, normative ethics and applied ethics presuppose that our moral questions are decidable non-arbitrarily. In other words, these activities presuppose that there are nonarbitrary answers to our moral questions. This very research aims to question this presupposition by exploring the answers of the three main families of metaethical theories, namely moral realism, moral antirealism and metaethical constructivism, to the question "Are moral questions decidable non-arbitrarily?". Our goal is not to determine which metaethical theory is the best, but rather to assess the possibility that moral questions are decidable non-arbitrarily. We will defend that moral realism seems to be compatible with the decidability of moral questions and that, on the contrary, antirealism and constructivism seem less compatible with moral decidability. Also, we will argue that the undecidability of moral questions, a practical problem generated by these metaethical frameworks, would involve a troublesome aporia. If a priori we admit that these three families of metaethical theories are equiprobable, we could then roughly affirm that we have two out of three chances to face the problem of moral undecidability and therefore the aporia it implies. This will justify for us the interest of exploring the possibility of a solution to this aporia. We will therefore propose the hypothesis according to which the practice of moral questioning in an aporetic way, considered as a non-cognitive activity, implies a certain way of being that is not arbitrary.

No description available.