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
    The argument from moral explanations, the regress argumen... — Carmelics
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The argument from moral explanations, the regress argument, and the skeptical hypothesis argument are mutually supportive.

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The skeptical hypothesis argument requires as a crucial premise that nothing can rule out moral nihilism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The regress argument supports that premise by criticizing each method for ruling out moral nihilism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The argument from moral explanations excludes yet another way to rule out moral nihilism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The argument from moral explanations and the regress argument target distinct epistemic vulnerabilities and need not converge on the same skeptical conclusion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Enoch's 'just too-weird' objection shows that moral facts can figure in quasi-explanations of why we care about them, blocking the explanatory exclusion premise independently of regress considerations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If one argument can be defeated without undermining the other, their relationship is competitive rather than mutually reinforcing, and the claimed mutual support is contingent rather than structural.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Coherentist epistemology, developed by BonJour and Rawls's reflective equilibrium tradition, dissolves the regress argument by denying that justification must be linear and foundational.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If coherentism is a viable response to the regress, the regress argument fails to establish the premise that moral nihilism cannot be ruled out, severing its supposed support for the skeptical hypothesis argument.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The mutual support claim therefore presupposes a foundationalist epistemological framework that is itself contested, making the alleged convergence question-begging against coherentist opponents.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    Coherentist epistemology, developed by BonJour and Rawls's reflective equilibriu...Enoch's 'just too-weird' objection shows that moral facts can figure in quasi-ex...If coherentism is a viable response to the regress, the regress argument fails t...If one argument can be defeated without undermining the other, their relationshi...
    +6 moreShow less
    If the regress argument and the argument from moral explanations work, they supp...The argument from moral explanations and the regress argument target distinct ep...The argument from moral explanations excludes yet another way to rule out moral ...The mutual support claim therefore presupposes a foundationalist epistemological...The regress argument supports that premise by criticizing each method for ruling...The skeptical hypothesis argument requires as a crucial premise that nothing can...

    Similar

    If the regress argument and the argument from moral explanations work,...97%The regress argument's premise that moral beliefs require a certain ki...94%If the skeptical hypothesis argument and the argument from moral disag...94%The skeptical hypothesis argument and the argument from moral disagree...89%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: skepticism-moral
    View source passageHide passage
    These arguments for moral skepticism differ in many ways, but they seem mutually supportive. One crucial premise in the skeptical hypothesis argument claims that nothing can rule out moral nihilism. The best way to support that premise is to criticize each method for ruling out moral nihilism. That is just one instance of what the regress argument does more generally. The argument from moral explanations excludes yet another way to rule out moral nihilism. So, if these other arguments work, they
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit