Click here and press the right key for the next slide.
(This may not work on mobile or ipad. You can try using chrome or firefox, but even that may fail. Sorry.)
also ...
Press the left key to go backwards (or swipe right)
Press n to toggle whether notes are shown (or add '?notes' to the url before the #)
Press m or double tap to slide thumbnails (menu)
Press ? at any time to show the keyboard shortcuts
conclusion
Which comparison?
Ethics vs Physics
Not-justified-inferentially premises about particular moral scenarios cannot be used in ethical arguments where the aim is knowledge.
‘When I have an intuition it seems to me that something is the case, and so I am defeasibly justified in believing that things are as they appear to me to be. That fact [...] opens the door to the possibility of moral knowledge.’
(Kagan, 2023, p. 167)
1. ‘If I have the intuition that P, then [...] my belief that P [...] will be justified [until such time (a time which may never come) as] I find reason to reject it.’
(Kagan, 2023, p. 166)
2. ‘what it is to confirm an intuition:
checking it against other intuitions to see if they harmonize in the appropriate ways.’
(Kagan, 2023, p. 172)
Aside: compare Rawls’ on reflective equilibrium
The sceptic needs to show there is ‘something especially problematic about moral intuitions, as distinct from others.’
(Kagan, 2023, p. 170)
‘one may think of physical moral theory at first [...]
as the attempt to describe our moralperceptual capacity
[...]
what is required is
a formulation of a set of principles which,
when conjoined to our beliefs and knowledge of the circumstances,
would lead us to make these judgments with their supporting reasons
were we to apply these principles’
(Rawls, 1999, p. 41)
1. Ethical judgements are explained by a dual-process theory, which distinguishes faster from slower processes.
2. Faster processes are unreliable in unfamiliar* situations.
3. Therefore, we should not rely on faster process in unfamiliar* situations.
4. When philosophers rely on not-justified-inferentially premises, they are relying on faster processes.
5. The moral scenarios and principles philosophers consider involve unfamiliar* situations.
6. Therefore, not-justified-inferentially premises about particular moral scenarios, and debatable principles, cannot be used in ethical arguments where the aim is knowledge.