Moral realism is the view that there are such things as moral facts. Moral realists have attempted to combat the skeptical problem of relativism, which is that the truth of an ethical value judgment is often, or always, subjective, that is, relative to the parties it involves. This essay presents, discusses, and criticizes Hilary Putnam’s attempt at maintaining moral realism while at the same time maintaining a degree of epistemological relativism. Putnam’s positive account originates in moral epistemology, at the heart of which lies truth, as idealized rational acceptability or truth under ideal conditions. The bridge between moral epistemology and normative ethics stems from Putnam’s disintegration of facts and values. His theory is finalized in the construction of a normative moral theory, in which the central notion is incessant self-criticism in order to maintain rationality. After presenting Putnam’s core thesis, the criticism raised by Richard Rorty, is deliberated upon. Rorty is critical of Putnam’s attempt at holding on to objectivity, because he does not understand how objective knowledge can be both relative to a conceptual scheme, and at the same time objective. The conclusion is that Putnam is unable to maintain his notion of truth as idealized rational acceptability and is forced into epistemological relativism. Putnam’s normative ethics has characteristics in common with virtue ethics, and is of much interest regardless of whether it can be grounded epistemologically or not.

No description available.

L'objectif de ce mémoire est de comprendre la neutralité axiologique non pas comme une exigence épistémologique, mais plutôt comme un idéal éducationnel. Max Weber propose une science basée sur la description factuelle, de laquelle on exclut la formulation de jugements de valeur. Pour l'auteur, il est préférable de séparer les jugements descriptifs des jugements évaluatifs dans le but de préserver l'autonomie intellectuelle des étudiants. Comme il serait contraire au principe d'autonomie de laisser le professeur influencer et convaincre ses étudiants, de façon partisane, d'adhérer à certaines thèses normatives, Weber propose un mécanisme pour éviter que le professeur n'influence ses étudiants de manière illégitime. Les critiques contemporaines de la neutralité axiologique, en particulier celles de Sen et Putnam, voient dans le critère de neutralité un rejet de l'entrelacement logique des faits et des valeurs. Ils critiquent la supposée subjectivité des valeurs et, ce faisant, défendent une conception enrichie de la science où les valeurs éthiques sont présentes. Weber n'a jamais défendu qu'il était impossible de mener une analyse à la fois descriptive et normative. Seulement, on doit s'interroger sur les lieux où s'exprime la normativité, et s'assurer que toutes les conditions sont présentes pour qu'une discussion normative tende réellement à l'objectivité. / The objective of this Master’s thesis is to understand axiological neutrality, not as an epistemological requirement, but rather as an educational ideal. Max Weber proposes a science based on factual description, in which making value judgements is excluded. For the author, it is preferable to distinguish between descriptive and evaluative judgements so as to preserve the intellectual autonomy of students. As it would be contrary to the principle of autonomy to allow the professor to influence and convince students, in a biased manner, as well as to adhere to certain normative themes, Weber proposes a mechanism to prevent a professor from influencing students in an inappropriate way. Contemporary criticism of axiological neutrality, specifically by Sen and Putnam, sees the criteria of neutrality as a rejection of the interlacing logic of facts and values. They criticize the so-called subjectivity of values and, by doing this, defend an enriched view of science where ethical values are present. Weber has never defended the idea that it was impossible to do an analysis that is both descriptive and normative. However, one must ask where normative aspects are expressed, and make sure that all conditions are present so that a normative discussion truly results in objectivity.

No description available.