Here are the questions that I'm looking to understand better:
What is the structure of knowledge? Is every belief justified, or do we have some unjustified beliefs, or some beliefs that justify themselves? What is the status of inference to the best explanation--if it's justified, how is it justified? Note that Enoch's argument depends on there being a justification for inference to the best explanation.
If one believes that there are some normative facts, does that mean that there will be ethical facts as well? What are the costs of continuing to deny the existence of ethical facts in the face of the existence of some normative facts?
Is explanation more basic than our other needs? That is, if our non-explanation considerations require us to believe something, and explanation requires us to not believe it, does explanation win, and if so why?
Is there a way to use an indispensability/transcendental argument to defend moral realism? How does that relate to our defense of mathematical realism?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment