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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Moore's account of a priori moral knowledge is intuitionist, not rationalist

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Moore's method in Principia Ethica involves systematic conceptual analysis and rigorous argument to establish what 'good' means, not mere intuitive apprehension.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rationalist a priori knowledge does not require deductive derivation from a single principle, but can proceed through conceptual analysis, as in Leibniz.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If Moore's open question argument is a piece of sustained a priori reasoning about concepts, his method is rationalist in structure even if his conclusions are non-naturalist.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Sidgwick, whom Moore explicitly builds upon, employs rational intuitions as axioms within a broader systematic framework of practical reason, blurring the intuitionist-rationalist divide.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Moore's insistence that 'good' is a sui generis non-natural property knowable through intellectual perception places him closer to rationalist non-naturalists like Price than to Hutcheson's intuitionism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Moore holds that fundamental moral principles are self-evident and require no reasons or prior reasoning to justify them
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kant holds that moral knowledge results from careful transcendental and deductive reasoning from a fundamental moral principle
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An intuitionist account of a priori knowledge grounds belief in self-evident propositions that appear true, rather than in reasoning
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.