Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Ballantyne and Thurow's argument does not establish that ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Ballantyne and Thurow's argument is insufficient to validate intuitionist methodology.

    Ballantyne and Thurow's argument does not establish that a significantly large group of reliable intuitions exists.

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    Ballantyne and Thurow's argument is insufficient to validate intuitionist method...Intuitionists must show not only that some intuitions justify non-inferentially,...

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Skepticism
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Intuitionists must show not only that some intuitions justify non-infe...88%Ballantyne and Thurow's argument is insufficient to validate intuition...84%Searle's Chinese Room argument relies on untutored intuitions rather t...84%Searle's argument depends for its force on intuitions that certain ent...83%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: intuitionism-ethics
    View source passageHide passage
    Nonetheless, Ballantyne and Thurow do not question the first part of Sinnott- Armstrong’s argument—that is, the claim that because of partiality, bias, emotion and disagreement, we have good reason to think that most of our moral beliefs are false. If it is true, as Sinnott-Armstrong claims, that most of our moral beliefs are false, then intuitionists’ trust in our ordinary moral thought will look undermined regardless of whether they can salvage a few sound moral beliefs from the wreckage. So i

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective