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
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    It is not clear whether non-moral explanations work as we... — Carmelics
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The moral skeptic's replacement argument is not conclusively established

    It is not clear whether non-moral explanations work as well as moral explanations in all cases

    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

    It is not clear whether inference to the best explanation must underlie all just...The moral skeptic's replacement argument is not conclusively established

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Skepticism
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Theism provides a better explanation of moral knowledge than non-theis...82%The argument from moral explanations excludes yet another way to rule ...82%The Darwinian explanation does not need to postulate the existence of ...82%Non-moral descriptions can always replace moral explanations of phenom...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: skepticism-moral
    View source passageHide passage
    Moral skeptics usually reply that such explanations can be replaced by non-moral descriptions of Hitler, slavery, and torture. If such replacements are always available, then moral truths are not necessary for the best explanation of anything. However, it is not clear whether or not non-moral explanations really do work as well as moral explanations in all cases. Nor is it clear whether inference to the best explanation must lie behind all justified belief.

    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