Isserow Flashcards
what is debunking genealogy?
An account of the origin of our (moral) judgments that is incompatible with (moral) knowledge. Casts doubt on the origins of our moral judgments reliability.
what is non-debunking geneaology?
Moral judgmnts plausibly could be the product of capacities that evolved for other reasons, such as the ability to classify/categorize, to predict other behaviors, and to judge things as more or less desirable. Doesn’t cast doubt on the reliability of our judgments and doesn’t undercut our judgment about the origins of moral judgments.
Essentially, it’s something that doesn’t make us look unreliable.
what is an example of a debunking genealogy that one might think debunks moral beliefs?
Matt found out that he’s living in the Truman show and that all of his moral beliefs have been created by people who just wanted to see how he would act. This debunks Matts moral beliefs because it gives an account of an origin of it’s moral judgments that is incompatible with (moral) knowledge
what is Isserow’s argument for moral skepticism?
- We don’t know enough to say whether debunking or non-debunking genealogies are more likely to be true
a. we know relatively little about the space of hypothesis about the origin of our moral judgments
i. this is why we can’t do bayesian confirmation, because we don’t know all of the competing hypotheses (the first step in bayesian confirmation)
b. if we know relatively little about the space of hypotheses about X, then for any hypothesis H about X that we consider, we cannot tell how well the evidence we currently have supports its truth vs falsity. - If debunking genealogy is likely enough to be true, then we don’t have moral knowldge.
- Thus, we don’t know whether we have moral knowledge (and we know that we don’t know this)
- If we know that (we do not know that (we know that p)), then we don’t know that p
This is an undercutting defeater - Thus, we lack moral knowledge
this is a rebutting defeater
this isn’t saying moral realism is false, though
