Scholarlink

<p>Debunking arguments in metaethics are generally viewed as arguments against moral realism. In this paper, I distinguish these kinds of arguments, which I label <i>offensive</i> debunking arguments, from <i>defensive</i> debunking arguments, which are used to defuse specific pieces of evidence. I then argue that moral error theorists can use defensive debunking arguments to undermine Moorean arguments against the view by providing plausible debunking explanations for our moral beliefs. Crucially, these explanations have a much lower burden of proof than in explanations within offensive debunking arguments. Rather than needing to meet a high empirical bar, these explanations merely need to provide a plausible explanation for our moral beliefs on which they are not truth tracking. Not only does this distinction strengthen extant responses to Moorean arguments by showing that they have a low burden of proof, but it also helps to show why recent versions of the Moorean objection fail.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Defensive debunking arguments: Why Moorean objections to the moral error theory fail

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月20日

查看全文
  • Declan O’Gara

摘要

Debunking arguments in metaethics are generally viewed as arguments against moral realism. In this paper, I distinguish these kinds of arguments, which I label offensive debunking arguments, from defensive debunking arguments, which are used to defuse specific pieces of evidence. I then argue that moral error theorists can use defensive debunking arguments to undermine Moorean arguments against the view by providing plausible debunking explanations for our moral beliefs. Crucially, these explanations have a much lower burden of proof than in explanations within offensive debunking arguments. Rather than needing to meet a high empirical bar, these explanations merely need to provide a plausible explanation for our moral beliefs on which they are not truth tracking. Not only does this distinction strengthen extant responses to Moorean arguments by showing that they have a low burden of proof, but it also helps to show why recent versions of the Moorean objection fail.