David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In Darrell Rowbottom & Anthony Booth (eds.), Intuitions. Oxford University Press (forthcoming)
Moderate rationalism is the view a person's having a rational intuition that p prima facie justifies them in believing that p. It has recently been argued that moderate rationalism requires empirical support and, furthermore, that suitable empirical support would suffice to convince empiricists to abandon their opposition to rationalism. According to one argument, the causal requirement argument, empirical evidence is necessary in order to justify the claim that any actual token belief is based on rational intuition and moderate rationalism requires such a claim for its justification. According to a second argument, the reliability argument, empirical evidence is necessary in order to justify the claim that a putative source of evidence is reliable and moderate rationalism requires such a claim for its justification. According to a third argument, the empirical case argument, certain sorts of empirical evidence would be dialectically sufficient to resolve the traditional dispute between empiricists and rationalists in the rationalists' favor. Against the causal requirement argument, I maintain that the core doctrines of moderate rationalism are not hostage to causal claims and that such causal claims as may be plausibly part of other recognizably rationalist doctrines can be justified on broadly non-empirical grounds. Against the reliability argument, I show that no empirical evidence is required to justify belief in the reliability of rational intuition. Against the empirical case argument, I argue that the envisioned empirical support for moderate rationalism should not convince any traditional empiricist.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Joel Pust (2004). On Explaining Knowledge of Necessity. Dialectica 58 (1):71–87.
Yuval Avnur (2011). An Old Problem for the New Rationalism. Synthese 183 (2):175-185.
George Bealer (2000). A Theory of the a Priori. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 81 (1):1–30.
Bruce Aune (2002). Against Moderate Rationalism. Journal of Philosophical Research 27:1-26.
Steve Clarke (2008). Sim and the City: Rationalism in Psychology and Philosophy and Haidt's Account of Moral Judgment. Philosophical Psychology 21 (6):799 – 820.
Peter Achinstein (1995). Are Empirical Evidence Claims a Priori? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 46 (4):447-473.
J. Agassi (2013). On the Reliability of Science: The Critical Rationalist Version. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 43 (1):100-115.
Hanno Sauer (2012). Psychopaths and Filthy Desks: Are Emotions Necessary and Sufficient for Moral Judgment? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (1):95-115.
Nenad Miščević (2005). Is Apriority Context-Sensitive? Acta Analytica 20 (1):55-80.
Andrew Sneddon (2009). Normative Ethics and the Prospects of an Empirical Contribution to Assessment of Moral Disagreement and Moral Realism. Journal of Value Inquiry 43 (4):447-455.
Larry Shapiro (2010). Lessons From Causal Exclusion. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 81 (3):594-604.
Lawrence A. Shapiro (2010). Lessons From Causal Exclusion. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 81 (3):594-604.
Greg Bognar (2012). Empirical and Armchair Ethics. Utilitas 24 (04):467-482.
Jeanette Kennett (2006). Do Psychopaths Really Threaten Moral Rationalism? Philosophical Explorations 9 (1):69 – 82.
Added to index2013-09-05
Total downloads6 ( #162,851 of 1,088,810 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #30,950 of 1,088,810 )
How can I increase my downloads?