Can Moral Realists Deflect Defeat Due to Evolutionary Explanations of Morality?

Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 98 (S1):227-248 (2017)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

I address Andrew Moon's recent discussion (2016, this journal) of the question whether third-factor accounts are valid responses to debunking arguments against moral realism. Moon argues that third-factor responses are valid under certain conditions but leaves open whether moral realists can use his interpretation of the third-factor response to defuse the evolutionary debunking challenge. I rebut Moon's claim and answer his question. Moon's third-factor reply is valid only if we accept externalism about epistemic defeaters. However, even if we do, I argue, the conditions Moon identifies for a valid third-factor response are not met in the case of moral realism.

Other Versions

No versions found

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-10-11

Downloads
1,282 (#16,266)

6 months
133 (#48,354)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Michael Klenk
Delft University of Technology

Citations of this work

Debunking, Epistemic Achievement, and Undermining Defeat.Michael Klenk - 2022 - American Philosophical Quarterly 59 (1):43-60.
Evolution and Moral Disagreement.Michael Klenk - 2018 - Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 14 (2).
Moral realism, disagreement, and conceptual ethics.Michael Klenk - 2024 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 67 (9):2884-2901.

View all 9 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Moral realism: a defence.Russ Shafer-Landau - 2003 - New York: Oxford University Press.
Taking Morality Seriously: A Defense of Robust Realism.David Enoch - 2011 - Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press UK.
A Natural History of Human Morality.Michael Tomasello (ed.) - 2014 - Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
A Darwinian dilemma for realist theories of value.Sharon Street - 2006 - Philosophical Studies 127 (1):109-166.

View all 47 references / Add more references