Moral intuitionism and disagreement

Moral Intuitionism Meets Empirical Psychology

G. E. Moore’s diatribe against the naturalistic fallacy in 1903 set the stage for most of twentieth-century moral philosophy. The main protagonists over the next sixty years were intuitionists and emotivists, both of whom were convinced by Moore that empirical science is irrelevant to moral philosophy and common moral beliefs. Even in the 1970s and 1980s, when a wider array of moral theories en...

Moral realism and the sceptical arguments from disagreement and queerness

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opin...

Moral Intuitions vs. Moral Reasoning. A Philosophical Analysis of the Explanatory Models Intuitionism Relies On

The notion of ‘intuition’ is usually contrasted with rational thought, thus motivating a differentiation between two kinds of processes that are supposed to characterize human thinking, i.e. rational and ‘intuitive’ (immediate and non-argumentative) forms of judgment. Recently, the notion of intuition has also played a leading role in cognitive studies on morality with the rise of so-called soc...

Intuitionism

D. Loeb Moral Realism and the Argument from Disagreement

The argument from disagreement is among the most important that has been directed against moral realism.1 Yet, in recent years it has been widely rejected – so widely, in fact, that even those who are sympathetic with irrealism have often found it unconvincing. One reason for this has to do with the fact that newer, more sophisticated versions of moral realism have recently emerged. Some of the...