Sinnott-Armstrong here provides an extensive survey of the difficult subject of moral beliefs. He covers theories that grapple with questions of morality such as naturalism, normativism, intuitionism, and coherentism. He then defends his own theory that he calls "moderate moral skepticism," which is that moral beliefs can be justified, but not extremely justified.
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Academic moral skepticism Academic skepticism act is morally alternatives argue argument beg the question belief justiﬁed beliefs are justiﬁed beliefs are true beneﬁt best explanation capital punishment chicken sexer coherent coherentism coherentists conﬁrmation context contractarian crow Dahlia deceiving demon deﬁned deﬁnition deny depends epistemic ethics committee evidence example explain expressivism expressivists extreme contrast class extremely justiﬁed false ﬁnd ﬁrst ﬁrst-order ﬁt ﬁve Fogelin Gauthier Humean impartial implies inference justiﬁed belief justiﬁed in believing justiﬁed in holding justiﬁed moral belief justiﬁed without qualiﬁcation justify kind meta-ethics modest contrast class modestly justiﬁed moral assumptions moral claim moral epistemology moral facts moral intuitionism moral intuitionists moral intuitions moral nihilism moral nihilists moral realists moral sentences morally wrong non-moral Nonetheless normative person problem Pyrrhonian skepticism Pyrrhonism rational reason to believe regress argument relevant contrast class reliable rule out moral second-order beliefs seems semantic Sinnott-Armstrong skeptical hypotheses substantive moral supposed theory