課程說明：
本課程以 David Copp（2025）對倫理自然主義與規範性問題的系統性辯護為核心，
深入探討近年間後設倫理學中關於規範性（normativity）、理由（reasons）、
演化去蔽論證（EDA）與方法論自然化的正反辯論。課程最後以 Philippa Foot 與 Mary Midgley 的「厚自然主義」作為替代與批判性總結。

課程目標：
1. 精準重構當代倫理自然主義的主要論證。
2. 理解規範性問題在後設倫理中的不同層次。
3. 能以厚自然主義回應當代去蔽論證與規範性挑戰。


Week 1 導論：規範性問題的提出
Copp (2025) Introduction;
Scanlon (1998) ch.1
Week 2 自然主義的挑戰：Open Question
Copp (2025), ch.1
Moore (1903)
Mackie (1977), ch.1
Week 3 規範性與理由
Copp (2025), ch.2
Parfit (2011); Scanlon (2014)
Week 4 倫理自然主義的形上學基礎
Copp (2025), ch.3
Railton (1986)
Week 5 功能、自然事實與規範性
Copp (2025), ch.4
Millikan (1984)

Week 6 演化挑戰：Darwinian Debunking Arguments
Copp (2025), ch.5
Street (2006)

Week 7 回應 Street：規範治理與合理性
Copp (2025), ch.6
Street (2011)

Week 8 社會規範、權威與自然化方法
Copp (2025), ch.7
Hanson (2019)

Week 9 期中考週

Week 10 規範性形上學 vs 語義學
Copp (2025), ch.8
Enoch (2011), ch.5

Week 11 實踐權威與規範性理由
Copp (2025), ch.9
Raz (1979), ch.2

Week 12反自然主義的當代挑戰
Copp (2025), ch.10
Parfit (2011), vol.2 ch.26

Week 13｜倫理自然主義的整體辯護
Copp (2025), ch.11
Finlay (2014), ch.6

Week 14｜Copp 理論的限制與批判
Copp (2025), ch.12
Bedke (2014)

Week 15｜轉向厚自然主義：生命形式與自然善
Foot (2001), chs.1–3

Week 16｜Midgley：反還原的倫理自然主義
Midgley (1995), chs.1–2
Midgley (2001), ch.6

Week 17 自主學習週
Week 18 期末考週

指定教材

Boyd, R. (1988). How to be a moral realist. In G. Sayre-McCord (Ed.), Essays on moral realism.
Copp, D. (2025). Ethical naturalism and the problem of normativity. Oxford University Press.
Darwall, S. (2006). The second-person standpoint. Harvard University Press.
Enoch, D. (2011). Taking morality seriously. Oxford University Press.
Finlay, S. (2014). Confusion of tongues. Oxford University Press.
Foot, P. (2001). Natural goodness. Oxford University Press.
Kahane, G. (2011). Evolutionary debunking arguments. Noûs, 45(1), 103–125.
Midgley, M. (1995). Beast and man. Routledge.
Midgley, M. (2001). Science and poetry. Routledge.
Parfit, D. (2011). On what we owe to each other. Oxford University Press.
Railton, P. (1986). Moral realism. Philosophical Review, 95(2), 163–207.
Scanlon, T. (1998). What we owe to each other. Harvard University Press.
Street, S. (2006). A Darwinian dilemma for realist theories of value. Philosophical Studies, 127, 109–166.


評量方式：
碩士生
課堂參與 30%
報告 20%
期末研究論文 50%

博士生
課堂參與 25%
報告 25%
期末研究論文 50%