IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/pophec/v7y2008i4p403-422.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the meta-ethical status of constructivism: reflections on G.A. Cohen's `Facts and Principles'

Author

Listed:
  • Miriam Ronzoni

    (European University Institute, Italy)

  • Laura Valentini

    (The Queen's College, Oxford, UK)

Abstract

In his article `Facts and Principles', G.A. Cohen attempts to refute constructivist approaches to justification by showing that, contrary to what their proponents claim, fundamental normative principles are fact- in sensitive. We argue that Cohen's `fact-insensitivity thesis' does not provide a successful refutation of constructivism because it pertains to an area of meta-ethics which differs from the one tackled by constructivists. While Cohen's thesis concerns the logical structure of normative principles, constructivists ask how normative principles should be justified . In particular, their claim that justified fundamental normative principles are fact-sensitive follows from a commitment to agnosticism about the existence of objective moral facts. We therefore conclude that, in order to refute constructivism, Cohen would have to address questions of justification, and take a stand on those long-standing meta-ethical debates about the ontological status of moral notions (for example, realism versus anti-realism) with respect to which he himself wants to remain agnostic.

Suggested Citation

  • Miriam Ronzoni & Laura Valentini, 2008. "On the meta-ethical status of constructivism: reflections on G.A. Cohen's `Facts and Principles'," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 7(4), pages 403-422, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:pophec:v:7:y:2008:i:4:p:403-422
    DOI: 10.1177/1470594X08095751
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1470594X08095751
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1470594X08095751?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:pophec:v:7:y:2008:i:4:p:403-422. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.