Objectivist conditions for defeat and evolutionary debunking arguments

Ratio 32 (4):246-259 (2019)

Authors
Michael Klenk
Delft University of Technology
Abstract
I make a case for distinguishing clearly between subjective and objective accounts of undercutting defeat and for rejecting a hybrid view that takes both subjective and objective elements to be relevant for whether or not a belief is defeated. Moderate subjectivists claim that taking a belief to be defeated is sufficient for the belief to be defeated; subjectivist idealists add that if an idealised agent takes a belief to be defeated then the belief is defeated. Subjectivist idealism evades some of the objections levelled against moderate subjectivism but can be shown to yield inconsistent results in some cases. Both subjectivisms should be rejected. We should be objectivists regarding undercutting defeat. This requirement, however, is likely to be problematic for a popular interpretation of evolutionary debunking arguments in metaethics as it can be shown that existing objectivist accounts of defeat do not support such arguments. I end by discussing the constraints of developing such an account.
Keywords defeasibility  epistemic defeat  evolutionary debunking arguments  metaethics  undercutting
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/rati.12230
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 46,148
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

On the Relationship Between Propositional and Doxastic Justification.John Turri - 2010 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 80 (2):312-326.
Process Reliabilism's Troubles with Defeat.Bob Beddor - 2015 - Philosophical Quarterly 65 (259):145-159.
Defeaters and Higher-Level Requirements.Michael Bergmann - 2005 - Philosophical Quarterly 55 (220):419–436.
Knowledge: Undefeated Justified True Belief.Keith Lehrer & Thomas Paxson Jr - 1969 - Journal of Philosophy 66 (8):225-237.

View all 20 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Evolutionary Ethics.Michael Klenk - 2019 - Introduction to Philosophy: Ethics.
Modal Security.Justin Clarke‐Doane & Dan Baras - forthcoming - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

What Makes Evolution a Defeater?Matt Lutz - 2018 - Erkenntnis 83 (6):1105-1126.
The Real Problem with Evolutionary Debunking Arguments.Louise Hanson - 2016 - Philosophical Quarterly 67 (268):508-33.
Evolutionary Debunking of Moral Realism.Katia Vavova - 2015 - Philosophy Compass 10 (2):104-116.
Evolutionary Debunking Arguments.Guy Kahane - 2011 - Noûs 45 (1):103-125.
Two Types of Debunking Arguments.Peter Königs - 2018 - Philosophical Psychology 31 (3):383-402.
No Coincidence?Matthew Bedke - 2014 - Oxford Studies in Metaethics 9:102-125.
Debunking Evolutionary Debunking.Katia Vavova - 2014 - Oxford Studies in Metaethics 9:76-101.
Evolutionary Debunking Arguments Meet Evolutionary Science.Arnon Levy & Yair Levy - 2018 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.
How to Determine whether Evolution Debunks Moral Realism.Thomas Pölzler - 2018 - Jahrbuch für Wissenschaft Und Ethik 23 (1):35-60.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2019-02-04

Total views
30 ( #305,812 of 2,285,432 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
9 ( #107,666 of 2,285,432 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature