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 moral skeptic's replacement argument is not conclusiv... — Carmelics
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The moral skeptic's replacement argument is not conclusively established

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Gilbert Harman's original formulation requires that moral facts add explanatory power beyond physical-psychological facts, but this standard is not met by the replacement argument itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Nicholas Sturgeon's response demonstrates that moral facts like 'Hitler was evil' do explanatory work that cannot be fully captured by purely descriptive psychological or sociological substitutes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If non-moral explanations systematically required moral concepts to individuate the relevant phenomena, then the replacement is circular rather than genuinely reductive.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Inference to the best explanation, as defended by Peter Lipton, requires that the competing explanation be equally coherent and not merely extensionally equivalent under redescription.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A non-moral explanation that preserves all predictive content of a moral explanation while stripping normative content fails Lipton's loveliness criterion, since it explains less about why agents are motivated.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore the replacement argument cannot be conclusively established without a prior and contested resolution of the metaethical debate about whether motivation is internally or externally related to moral judgment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.It is not clear whether non-moral explanations work as well as moral explanations in all cases
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.It is not clear whether inference to the best explanation must underlie all justified belief
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    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.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    A non-moral explanation that preserves all predictive content of a moral explana...Gilbert Harman's original formulation requires that moral facts add explanatory ...If non-moral explanations systematically required moral concepts to individuate ...Inference to the best explanation, as defended by Peter Lipton, requires that th...
    +4 moreShow less
    It is not clear whether inference to the best explanation must underlie all just...It is not clear whether non-moral explanations work as well as moral explanation...Nicholas Sturgeon's response demonstrates that moral facts like 'Hitler was evil...Therefore the replacement argument cannot be conclusively established without a ...

    Similar

    Moral skeptics can criticize any moral belief or theory without offeri...78%If the burden of proof rests on those making positive moral claims, mo...78%The failure of an ethical transcendental argument to establish an ambi...77%The skeptic's position, while possibly correct, requires acting agains...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    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.
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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