Isserow, Clark-Doane, and everyone else Flashcards
What would Alston say about Isserow’s argument?
Chauvnism Argument
- Alston would say that we have a worrisome feature F is our lack of evidence for understanding moral beliefs on either side (for debunking or non debunking genealogy)
- This worrisome feature for moral beliefs is not a defeater because moral experiences tell us it’s not a defeater
(i.e., we know that we shouldn’t murder people because you don’t want to get shot on the street).
-C. Thus, we should not say that the worrisome feature of a lack of evidence for understanding moral beliefs is a defeater.
*So, Alston and Isserow would disagree!
What would Huemer say about Isserow’s argument?
Huemer would say that if it seems to us that our moral beliefs are true, we have at least prima facie justification for believing they are true
He would disagree with Isserow that understanding our moral origins and how they’re compatible with our moral knowledge even matters, because for Huemer, all that matters if it seems to us that S is true, we have at least prima facie justification until proven otherwise
I’m not sure if he would consider debunking genalogy to be a defeater. Possibly, but it would have to defeat our seemings (which it doesn’t seem like our prima facie justifcation for moral beliefs are not to be understood via our seemings).
What would the externalists say about Isserow’s argument?
The externalists rely heavily on process reliabilism. That is, so long as we have a prima facie reliable process for a belief, we have prima facie justification for believing that belief is justified.
They would likely say that isserow’s argument demonstrates a defeater, as it shows how our process isn’t prima facie justified by claiming that debunking genalogy removes our justification for moral knowledge by casting doubt on the origins of morality.
What would McGrath say about Isserow’s argument?
McGrath’s argument is the idea that realism does not require convergence, and that it shouldn’t have to require convergence because morality is insufficent, misleading, and difficult to put together.
For Isserow, the fact that moral evidence is this way is a defeater, because if we can’t understand the origins of our moral beliefs, how do we know our moral beliefs? But, according to McGrath, this is just the way that moral beliefs are supposed to be understood, to some degree, so the fact that their past is confusing can’t act as a defeater for moral realism.
What would Street say about Isserow’s argument?
- Both talk about the origin of our beliefs (debunking argument talks about how we picked our moral beliefs wheter they are true or not, debunking genalogy casts doubt on the origins of moral judgments)
- Both agree that we should be doubtful of the origin of our moral beliefs
- But Street doesn’t realize she falls into skepticism (which Vavova explains), whereas Isserow accepts moral skepticism
What would Vavova say about Isserow’s argument?
- Isserow is saying that there’s no good reason to be a moral realist because we lack evidence
- But, Vavova would push Isserow to rely on some beliefs about morality, to demonstrate that we can’t be entirely morally skeptical (because we must use moral beliefs to talk about morality)
Vavova and Isserow would disaree, because Vavova believes that we can’t use evolution as a defeater for our moral beliefs but Isserow argues that our lack of understanding the origin of our believes leaves us with a lack of moral knowledge
What would DeCruz say about Isserow’s argument?
DeCruz would say that it’s okay that we disagree on the origin of our moral beliefs, because we converge on the general ideas that moral beliefs convey. DeCruz would argue that this disagreeance (or divergence) if anything is a good thing, because it demonstrates that we don’t have systematic biases for moral beliefs but still agree on the important details
What would Alston say about Clark-Doane’s argument?
Chauvinism Argument and Isserow:
- mathematics and moral beliefs must confer some sort of prima facie justification
- but, both of these seem to have worrisome features (mathematics with the benaceraff problem and moral beliefs with the debunking argument)
- however, as Clark-Doane explains, this is not a worrisome feature/a defeater for mathematics and moral beliefs because both of them remain safe and sensitive.
- So, we cannot say that the worrisome feature discussed in the BP and DA are a worrisome feature because the beliefs are still safe and sensitive
Double Standard Argument:
- im not sure if Clark-Doane’s argument contains a double standard tbh
What would Huemer say about Clark-Doane’s argument?
Phenomenal Conservatism and Clark-Doane
-PC says that: if it seems to S that P is true, S has at least some prima facie justification for believing P
- So, Huemer would probably respond to Clark-Doane by saying: if it seems to us that our mathematical beliefs and moral beliefs are true, we at least have prima facie justification for believing that they are true, especially because we haven’t encountered any true defeaters (which, for Clark-Doane would be proving that they are either unsafe, insensitive, or both) that would remove justifcation.
What would the externlists say about Clark-Doane’s argument?
The Process Reliabilist and Clark-Doane
- process reliabilism asks whether or not the belief was formed with a prima facie reliable process, and, if so, if it can provide prima facie justifcation
- Clark-Doane relies on process reliabilsm while explaining safety, because for Clark-Doane, in order for a belief to be safe it must be formed via a safe method in which there is no close possible world in which this method gives the person a false belief
- The externalist and Clark-Doane would likely greatly agree
What would McGrath say about Clark-Doane’s argument?
McGrath’s argument that realism requires convergence is false and Clark-Doane’s argument:
- both agree and recgonzie that the moral domain seems hella confusing
- but, both also agree that just because it’s confusing doesn’t necessarily mean that this confusingness is a defeater (whether that be confusingness of origin (i.e., Street’s view) or confusigness of the three factors (insufficent, misleading, or confusing evidence)
- neither come to a definite conclusion about moral realism or whether or not we should believe our moral beliefs, but rather, both just explain that factors of understanding morality can’t be true (i.e., moral realism requiring convergence, or the debunking argument)
What would Street say about Clark-Doane’s argument?
Street’s Debunking Argument and Clark-Doane
- Clark Doane is directly responding to Street’s argument, explaing that the debunking argument cannot be thought of as a defeater for moral beliefs
- Street explains that our moral beliefs were selected whether or not they are true, and that it could all be a big coincidence if they are in fact true, so, evolution defeats the justifcation we have for moral beliefs
- however, Clark-Doane says that Street’s argument cannot hold, because it hasn’t been demonstrated that moral beliefs are either unsafe or insensitive. Moral beliefs seem to have been formed via a reliable method (in which this method wouldn’t give a person false beliefs in a nearby world), and they seem to change if the belief is not so in a nearby world, making the belief sensitive.
- so, Clark-Doane and Street disagree on wheter or not we can defeat our justifcation for our moral beliefs — Street saying that no, we cannot, because evolution debunks our justification for them, and Clark-Doane explaining that these beliefs seem safe and sensitive, and so long as the two are true they can’t be defeated.
What would Vavova say about Clark-Doane’s argument?
Vavova’s denial of evolutionary debunking and Clark-Doane:
- Vavova and Clark-Doane both agree that we cannot use evolution to undercut our justication for our moral beliefs
- they both just get to this conclusion in a slightly different way
- Vavova explains that we must have some moral beliefs in order to talk about them in the first place, and that in order to defeat these beliefs we would have to give evidence that these beliefs are unreliable; however, our beliefs about morality make it seem like evolution gave us reliable moral beliefs (so we can’t undercut our justifcation using a debunkers argument)
- Clark-Doane would say that we can’t undercut our justifcation of our moral beliefs using the debunkers argument because we have yet to prove that our moral beliefs are unsafe or insenstitive. According to Clark-Doane, the only way for us to defeat justification for a belief is to demonstrate that the belief is unsafe or insensitive, and moral beliefs have not been proven unsafe or insensitive.
What would DeCruz say about Clark-Doane’s argument?
Convergence and Divergence (DeCruz) and Clark-Doane
- DeCruz explains that people must have a prima facie reliable process because they agree and have a level of convergence regarding the overall idea but their divergence demonstrates their reliable process by ensuring that no one is influenced by systematic biases.
- Like DeCruz, Clark-Doane emphasizes the use of a reliable process in explaining safety, explaining that in order for a belief to be safe, it must be formed via a relaible process in which this reliable process wouldn’t give the person false beliefs.
-Furthermore, we commonly do agree about the truth of mathematics and moral beliefs (convergence), though we may disagree with a few minor details (divergence), so it seems that Clark-Doane and DeCruz would agree in saying that our mathematical and moral beliefs remain undefeated.
What would Clark-Doane say about Isserow’s argument?
It doesn’t matter that we don’t have enough evidence about our past, it only matters that our beliefs be safe and sensitive
Clark-Doane and Isserow would disagree because Isserow believes that we lack moral knowledge whereas Clark-Doane says that we can’t distrust our moral knowledge unless it is proven unsafe or insensitive (and it has not been proven to be so thus far)
Clark-Doane is undercutting Isserow’s argument by saying that debunking genalogy is not a defeater for moral beliefs.
Clark-Doane is rebutting Isserow’s argument by saying our moral beliefs have yet to be defeated.
