This analysis critiques conceptual engineering's role in philosophy, suggesting its limitations indicate alternative avenues for philosophy's development.
This paper argues that the movement known as conceptual engineering cannot constitute a substantial methodological program for philosophy. The thought that conceptual engineering could be a revolutionary and/or revisionary method for philosophy rests on inaccurate understanding of the role that concepts play in philosophy. After showing how philosophy is ultimately interested in various phenomena, not the concepts capturing them, I argue that the practice most often touted by conceptual engineers – the revision of our entrenched concepts – is in fact impossible. What is possible – the development of new concepts – is typically downplayed by conceptual engineers, and cannot serve as substantive methodology for philosophy. I then argue that while there is room for some activity deserving the name 'conceptual engineering', there is no intellectual project associated with 'conceptual ethics'. I conclude by offering a new way of thinking about amelioration in philosophy in light of the limits of conceptual engineering.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jamin Asay (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: