The DOI matches its Crossref record; none of the 2 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Evolutionary Debunking, Moral Realism and Moral Knowledge
Open accessAbstract
This paper reconstructs what I take to be the central evolutionary debunking argument that underlies recent critiques of moral realism. The argument claims that given the extent of evolutionary influence on our moral faculties, and assuming the truth of moral realism, it would be a massive coincidence were our moral faculties reliable ones. Given this coincidence, any presumptive warrant enjoyed by our moral beliefs is defeated. So if moral realism is true, then we can have no warranted moral beliefs, and hence no moral knowledge. In response, I first develop what is perhaps the most natural reply on behalf of realism—namely, that many of our highly presumptively warranted moral beliefs are immune to evolutionary influence and so can be used to assess and eventually resuscitate the epistemic merits of those that have been subject to such influence. I then identify five distinct ways in which the charge of massive coincidence has been understood and defended. I argue that each interpretation is subject to serious worries. If I am right, these putative defeaters are themselves subject to defeat. Thus many of our moral beliefs continue to be highly warranted, even if moral realism is true.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Shafer-Landau defends moral realism against evolutionary debunking arguments by reconstructing the “Darwinian Argument” and arguing that its central premises—especially D1, D3, and D5—are inadequately supported. He concludes that moral realism remains compatible with moral knowledge and warranted moral belief.
Key findings
- The evolutionary debunkers’ master argument, reconstructed as D1–D11, aims to show that if moral realism is true and evolutionary forces have thoroughly shaped our moral faculties in doxastically discriminating ways, then our moral beliefs are unwarranted and we have no moral knowledge.
- Shafer-Landau argues that the crucial premise D5—that evolutionary forces have thoroughly shaped our moral faculties in doxastically discriminating ways—is “far from well confirmed,” and that D3—that there is no independent confirmation of the reliability of our moral faculties—is also uncertain.
- He examines five interpretations of the alleged “massive coincidence” (odds, insensitivity, confirmed doxastic effects, empiricist, causal) and finds none gives adequate reason to accept D1.
- He proposes that realists can use the “Natural Reply,” relying on highly presumptively warranted moral beliefs that are apparently maladaptive and thus not obviously products of evolutionary influence, to assess and rehabilitate other moral beliefs.
Methods
- Conceptual and philosophical analysis; no empirical data, sample, or statistical analysis are reported.
- The paper reconstructs evolutionary debunking arguments into premise-conclusion form, especially the Darwinian Argument (D1–D11), the Uncertainty Argument, the Probability Argument, the Insensitivity Argument, the Doxastic Effect Argument, the Empiricist Argument, and the Causal Argument.
- It evaluates each premise and considers realist replies, including the Natural Reply, semantic competence with moral concepts, parity with perceptual and a priori knowledge, and formal strategies of faculty vindication.
Limitations
- The paper states that D5 is an uncertain empirical hypothesis and that evolutionary accounts are in many ways “just-so stories” based on thin evidence about prehistoric events.
- It states that the status of D3 is uncertain and depends on whether realists can develop a successful formal strategy for vindicating the reliability of our moral faculties; it says “the jury is out” on how feasible such a strategy is.
- It acknowledges that it has not argued for the existence of a priori moral truths and that its proposed replies do not provide a complete account of nonnaturalistic moral knowledge.
- Evident from the text: the paper offers no empirical testing or new data; its conclusions rest on conceptual argument and on the current state of philosophical debate.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
132 Own interpretation · 24 No basis given · 2 Sources not found
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But there do seem to be some that appear anything but adaptive.Among many possibilities: those that counsel impartial benevolence, compassion for vulnerable strangers, kindness to small animals, concern for distant peoples and future generations, and speaking truth to power.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 3. The Natural Reply
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, most of our moral beliefs do not have necessarily true propositions as their contents”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No matter one's metaethic, it is true that our moral beliefs represent only a tiny fraction of those that are psychologically possible.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > a. The odds
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At this point, we do not.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 3. The Natural Reply
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But in order to entirely fend off the Natural Reply, debunkers must provide an indirect explanation of the origins of every moral belief that is both highly presumptively warranted and apparently maladaptive.Debunkers are very far from having done this.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 3. The Natural Reply
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In either case, there is a parity between realism and constructivism that supports the tu quoque response.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > a. The odds
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The problem with Huemer's line of argument is that even if he is right in his choice of influence-free beliefs, such beliefs do not seem, either by themselves or in conjunction with nonmoral claims, sufficient to warrant any specific, substantive moral beliefs over others.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 3. The Natural Reply
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and we can develop the Natural Reply by using those beliefs as secure points from which to rebuild our stock of credible moral commitments.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 3. The Natural Reply
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The contamination of our moral thinking would be local rather than global.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“D5 is far from well confirmed.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 3. The Natural Reply
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But we do recognize cases in which agents have been able to correct for very substantial distorting pressures on their moral faculties.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such warrant is not defeated until we have warranted confidence in all of the premises of the Darwinian Argument.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 3. The Natural Reply
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: If there is decisive reason to believe that our moral faculties are unreliable, and if those reasons are accessible to us, then this defeats any warrant we might have for our moral beliefs.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Instead, such pressures supply us with affective and cognitive dispositions that in many cases only incline us in certain doxastic directions, without entirely fixing the content of our beliefs.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, we cannot establish an agent's epistemic sensitivity simply by showing that the contents of her beliefs are metaphysically necessary truths.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So even if evolutionary doxastic origins are insensitive to moral truth, realistically construed, it has not yet been shown that it is highly likely that all or even most presumptively warranted moral beliefs have such origins.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The absence of any evidence of this sort for particular moral beliefs implies a limitation on the scope of justified debunking efforts.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 3. The Natural Reply
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moral realism and evolutionary influence together create a reasonable chance of moral unreliability just because that combination would make the reliability of our moral faculties a massive coincidence.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 4. The Argument from Uncertainty
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Assuming that such skepticism is erroneous -and also assuming that debunkers are trying to identify something especially worrisome about moral knowledge, rather than developing an argument for global skepticism -this line of reasoning will fail.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Skepticism about nearly everything is erroneous.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Debunkers are trying to identify something especially worrisome about moral knowledge, rather than developing an argument for global skepticism.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Beliefs that emerge from such a process can be well grounded.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Still, any success that constructivists may have in obtaining moral knowledge can, at least in principle, be replicated by the realist.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > a. The odds
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But debunkers have failed to show that evolutionary pressures have had a complete, thoroughgoing influence on our moral faculties.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such influences may affect only a subset of our moral beliefs.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But if this is the relevant claim, then it is unsubstantiated.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So it is implausible to suppose that all such moral beliefs are the direct product of evolutionary forces.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 3. The Natural Reply
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So if there are warranted moral beliefs that are unlikely to be adaptive, then, by the standards that obtain among those seeking to posit such evolutionary origins, we have excellent reason to think that we have located moral beliefs that have their origins elsewhere.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 3. The Natural Reply
boostedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The line of reasoning that supports P1 would prove too much.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > a. The odds
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet so long as such forces are not the sole cause of our presumptively warranted moral beliefs, then even if evolutionary pressures are distorting ones, there is the possibility that other doxastic operations can compensate for the distortions and lead us to the moral truth in ways that are perfectly familiar from other instances in which we have corrected for distorting doxastic influences.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Evolutionary critics of morality are not leveling this kind of critique.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 1. Genealogical Critiques
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the absence of specific and substantiated indirect explanations, we lack reason to doubt the credibility of these apparently maladaptive moral beliefs”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 3. The Natural Reply
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“debunkers have fallen far short of defending the claim that all of our presumptively warranted moral beliefs are products (even indirectly) of selective pressures.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Evolutionary arguments against moral realism are instances of a general kind of epistemological objection -that of the genealogical critique.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 1. Genealogical Critiques
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But so far as we know, evolutionary influences are at best only indirectly efficacious in causing us to have the specific moral beliefs we do.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If, in order to resist this move, debunkers nevertheless insist that there must be an evolutionary genealogy that can best explain the origins of apparently maladaptive (though highly presumptively warranted) moral beliefs, then their view threatens to become untestable.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 3. The Natural Reply
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The important point here is that if we grant that evolutionary pressures have greatly narrowed the scope of doxastic possibilities in the moral realm, this is not by itself any evidence that they have done so in a way that has led us away from moral truths, realistically construed.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > a. The odds
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Here we are up against a standing problem for classical foundationalism: that of having too few privileged beliefs from which to derive the wide variety of beliefs we intuitively regard as highly justified.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 3. The Natural Reply
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They have failed to show that we are incapable of critically stepping back from whatever doxastic inclinations have been implanted in us by selective pressures.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“And so we as yet lack reason to think that all or most presumptively warranted beliefs are formed in ways that are alethically insensitive.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Not all presumptively warranted moral beliefs are adaptive.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 3. The Natural Reply
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The recent genealogical critiques offered by moral antirealists are of this second sort.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 1. Genealogical Critiques
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But there is no compelling reason to suppose that realists are unable to supply reference-fixing standards of their own for moral concepts.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > a. The odds
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Insensitive belief-forming methods or processes can be reliable.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The low-odds conception of the relevant coincidence is subject to a tu quoque argument that will beset every non-error-theoretic proponent of an antirealist genealogical critique.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > a. The odds
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The contamination of our moral thinking would be local rather than global.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That is because of the possibility of causation by supervenient facts.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But it is no coincidence that those who adequately understand a priori propositions and form their beliefs on the basis of that understanding are reliably in touch with the truth.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It would be illicit at that point to introduce moral beliefs to bolster our confidence in our moral faculties, as any doubts about the faculties themselves ought to be transmitted to the beliefs they generate.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 6. The Use of Substantive Assumptions in Assessing Genealogical Critiques
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: We must trace the warrant of our moral beliefs to the exercise of our moral faculties.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite a variety of nonmoral causes impinging on our moral faculties, debunkers have failed to provide anything like a complete nonmoral causal story of the workings of our moral faculties.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus the fact that empirical investigation does not imply the reliability of normative faculties fails by itself to indict the reliability of those faculties.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > d. The Empiricist Argument
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is certainly plausible that our capacities of a priori apprehension and rational insight have themselves been subject to a variety of nonmoral forces -perhaps even to physical determination by physical laws.But this should not undermine our confidence in their reliability, even on the assumption that the facts they discern are causally impotent and best construed realistically.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Another reason to doubt E2 is that its truth would prove too much.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > d. The Empiricist Argument
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moral realists who are also ethical naturalists will reject C2.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Once the putative genealogical defeater has itself been defeated, we are certainly within our epistemic rights to invoke substantive moral claims to bolster the impression of the reliability of our moral faculties.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 6. The Use of Substantive Assumptions in Assessing Genealogical Critiques
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The absence of compelling reasons to accept (2) should not yield a state of aporia.Rather, it should leave us where we began -with a set of highly presumptively warranted moral beliefs whose positive epistemic status is thus far undefeated.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 7. Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Darwinian Argument is intended to undermine this status.It can do so only if we have an extremely high degree of warranted confidence in each of its premises.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 7. Conclusion
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The success of any version of this strategy would solve the problem of restoring warranted confidence in our moral faculties once we become aware of a criticism that causes us to worry about their reliability.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 6. The Use of Substantive Assumptions in Assessing Genealogical Critiques
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As the discussion of D5 indicated, debunkers are very far from having done that.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Modal facts, numerical facts and philosophical facts are all such that they do not directly cause anything other than beliefs with such facts as their contents.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Still, we are rightly confident that we have some knowledge in these domains.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If this is plausible, then moral facts might causally explain our moral beliefs, even if there is full causal determination by natural forces of our moral beliefs, and even if, as nonnaturalists claim, moral facts are neither typeidentical nor token-identical to natural ones.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But this possibility alone does not justify skepticism.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The antecedent of C1 does not entail its consequent.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We assign causal power to sets of supervening facts all the time, even while recognizing the causal potency of their subvening facts.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To the extent that I have succeeded in raising doubts about the crucial premises of the Darwinian Argument, we lack compelling reasons to accept (2).”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 7. Conclusion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But we can't, since assuming the truth of such substantive claims is precisely what agnostic genealogical critiques forbid.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > c. The confirmed doxastic effects of selective pressures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An empirical account of certain doxastic origins may be the best-confirmed among all competitors and still fail to be evidentially compelling.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > d. The Empiricist Argument
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Debunkers have offered no good reason to suppose that these epistemic capacities, reliable in many other contexts, are broken when their target propositions have moral content.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“And yet if we are able to identify claims that enjoy such immunity, then realists are in the clear.They would have all they need to vindicate the Natural Reply.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That is because we are rightly confident in a variety of beliefs in a priori propositions -indeed, synthetic a priori propositions 33 -even if there are wholly physicalistic etiologies of the episodes in which we gain the relevant understanding.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a general matter, and setting formal strategies aside for the moment, we can vindicate the likely reliability of doxastic origins in a given domain only by utilizing standards of critical assessment appropriate for that domain.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 7. Conclusion
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If we are convinced by evolutionary critiques, then the realists among us are saddled with moral skepticism.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 6. The Use of Substantive Assumptions in Assessing Genealogical Critiques
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But that is highly implausible.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In other words, causal sufficiency does not entail causal completeness.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Doxastic Effect Argument will overgeneralize to all domains of inquiry that are construed realistically and are relevantly autonomous, i.e., such that claims within that domain can be ratified only by assuming the truth of at least some other claims within it.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > c. The confirmed doxastic effects of selective pressures
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“And so there is noncausal knowledge.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So long as a priori knowledge generally is something within our grasp, then, for all debunkers have shown, a priori moral knowledge is also within our grasp.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The essential point is that we have lots of examples in which we have warranted confidence in our conditional beliefs, even though (we are supposing) the facts represented by such beliefs have not caused us to hold them.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In that situation, realists are rationally required to suspend judgment about all moral claims.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 6. The Use of Substantive Assumptions in Assessing Genealogical Critiques
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Unless natural facts are just identified as those that are causally efficacious -not a very attractive way of drawing up the taxonomy, I think 30 -then nonnaturalists are not per se barred from endorsing the causal efficacy of moral facts.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [30]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When it comes to our moral faculties, the likeliest candidate to serve as the basis of a successful formal strategy is the faculty of generating a priori beliefs.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 6. The Use of Substantive Assumptions in Assessing Genealogical Critiques
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The success of any indirect tracking hypothesis relies on enlisting at least one substantive moral or evaluative claim.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even Darwinian critics begin with a recognition that (at least) paradigmatic, uncontroversial moral beliefs are strongly presumptively warranted.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 7. Conclusion
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If moral facts are causally inert, then so too are modal, numerical and philosophical facts.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, even on the assumption that our modal conditional beliefs are not caused by conditional facts, our knowledge of their truth need not be coincidental.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The best-confirmed empirical account of the origins of our philosophical faculties does not imply their reliability.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > d. The Empiricist Argument
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, and a familiar point by now: Evolutionary (and psychological, historical, etc.) forces may heavily influence our moral faculties without providing a complete causal explanation of their origins and workings.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The confirmed doxastic effect of selective pressures is the inculcation of adaptive doxastic dispositions.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > c. The confirmed doxastic effects of selective pressures
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similarly, the beliefs generated by our moral (or other normative) faculties are not the sort of beliefs that are likely to be subject to empirical confirmation.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > d. The Empiricist Argument
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We believe them because they are true -where this is shorthand for the idea that the moral facts themselves have caused us (in combination, of course, with our appropriate doxastic receptivity) to have beliefs with the propositions representing those facts as contents.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is not the inculcation of truth-tracking doxastic dispositions.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > c. The confirmed doxastic effects of selective pressures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“And yet we can sometimes know that they are true.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But its second is probably false.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > d. The Empiricist Argument
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The wholly nonmoral set of causes that explains the origins of our moral faculties cannot plausibly be exhausted by evolutionary forces.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So we are able to know whether the beliefs caused by adaptive moral faculties are likely to be true only by utilizing the standards of critical assessment appropriate to the moral domain.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 7. Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, given the truth of any plausible inference barrier from is to ought, we will have to rely on substantive moral or evaluative claims in order to positively establish the existence of a correlation between selective pressures and the reliability of our moral faculties.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 7. Conclusion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: There is an inference barrier from is to ought.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Until better arguments for the central premises of the Darwinian Argument come along, or an entirely different form of antirealist genealogical critique makes its appearance, we are right to regard moral realism as perfectly compatible with moral knowledge and warranted moral belief.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 7. Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 42
- It may state two separate claims as one. 27
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet Southern antebellum abolitionists were able to transcend the influences of their time and place”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“so too were advocates of female suffrage in societies suffused with ideologies of male dominance.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But I take it that the second reply is sufficient to show that even error theorists who are not skeptics about perceptual knowledge should opt for a different understanding of the massive coincidence that allegedly undermines realist hopes for moral knowledge.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > a. The odds
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If selective pressures operated like a belief pill -effectively shortcircuiting an agent's powers of deliberation, and just implanting a belief without allowing an agent's rational insight or assessment of evidence to ground her belief -then we would have real cause for worry on this score.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That argument is meant to serve as a defeater of the presumptive warrant that even debunkers grant to many moral beliefs.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 3. The Natural Reply
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But debunkers have said nothing on behalf of this special status for evolutionary forces, nothing to show that evolutionary forces possess an immunity to correction that is unique among all possibly distorting doxastic influences.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If we are required to suspend judgment about which moral views are true and which false, then from that agnostic perspective, it would be a miracle were the moral beliefs we actually hold correct.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > a. The odds
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the model required by the belief-pill analogy, a belief is the product of such influences just when it is wholly caused by them.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But selective pressures, operating as indirect doxastic influences, still allow us to reflect critically on the nature of morality, assess evidence for moral claims, fully deliberate about the truth of such claims and base our beliefs on the grounds we find most compelling.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After all, the burden is on the evolutionary debunker to substantiate every one of the premises of the Darwinian Argument.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 3. The Natural Reply
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Debunkers have thus far not been clear enough about the precise nature of the alleged coincidence.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 5. Against D1: Diagnosing Massive Coincidence
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Assessments of coincidence must be rendered from some epistemic standpoint or other.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > a. The odds
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“D2 is plausible.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 2. The Darwinian Argument
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In other words, the best explanation of why anyone would find U1 plausible is because she already finds D1 appealing.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 4. The Argument from Uncertainty
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Knowledge must be based, in the right ways, on adequate insight, evidence, reasons or experience.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The key worry presented by Joyce's belief pill is that such a pill would undermine an appropriate basing relation needed to confer knowledge.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But by parity of reasoning, we should then be licensed to make the same assumption about our moral faculties.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > a. The odds
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“N1.If some of our highly presumptively warranted moral beliefs are not the product of evolutionary influence, and we can know which ones are thus immune, then we can utilize such beliefs to ascertain the plausibility of those that are the product of evolutionary pressures.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 3. The Natural Reply
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For almost every possible belief, we are unable to exclude the possibility that it is the product of evil demons or manipulative neuroscientists.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Once we impart background assumptions about magnetism, however, we eliminate any appearance of coincidence.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > a. The odds
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But absent a great deal of further empirical and philosophical work, this remains an unsubstantiated possibility that cannot rightly cast doubt on N2 or vindicate D5.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 3. The Natural Reply
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If the original line of argument is sound, then this should lead us to conclude that we have no perceptual knowledge if perceptual truths are construed realistically.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > a. The odds
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Joyce's critique is sound only if two conditions are true: (1) to the extent that our moral beliefs are the product of evolutionary forces, such beliefs are formed in ways that are insensitive to whatever moral truth there may be; and (2) our inability to exclude the possibility of insensitive doxastic origins for a set of beliefs S mandates suspension of judgment regarding all beliefs within that”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“I think that Joyce's argument really does rest on (2), as he is appropriately modest about the nature and extent of evolutionary influences on our moral faculties.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Agents accidentally come to true beliefs when they fail to base their beliefs on adequate insight, evidence, experience or reasons.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even if we were to grant condition (1), this general line of reasoning is deeply problematic, since the truth of (2) would lead to wholesale skepticism.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Skepticism about nearly everything is erroneous.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Debunkers are trying to identify something especially worrisome about moral knowledge, rather than developing an argument for global skepticism.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of course we can resist this line of reasoning by assuming that our perceptual faculties are largely reliable.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > a. The odds
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The primary evidence for the influence of evolutionary pressures on our moral faculties is the fact that many of our paradigm moral beliefs are highly adaptive.6”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 3. The Natural Reply
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A priori knowledge is not miraculous -or if it is, then given our confidence in the existence of such knowledge, a charge of massive coincidence should no longer suffice to undermine prospects for knowledge.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the assumption of realism's truth, the warrant for our moral beliefs would have been defeated.It would therefore be illicit to rely on those beliefs in seeking to restore that warrant.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 6. The Use of Substantive Assumptions in Assessing Genealogical Critiques
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For substantive evaluative or moral claims, if they are able to do the needed work, must enjoy a degree of positive epistemic status that is immune to genealogical critiques.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If we are convinced that those critiques are less powerful than their adherents have thought, then we can adopt an internal coherence strategy of faculty vindication and enlist substantive moral beliefs to validate the reliability of our moral faculties.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 6. The Use of Substantive Assumptions in Assessing Genealogical Critiques
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus until such time as we can mount a successful defense of a formal strategy for vindicating the reliability of our moral faculties, moral realists will have to focus directly on trying to undermine at least one premise of the Darwinian Argument.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 6. The Use of Substantive Assumptions in Assessing Genealogical Critiques
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After all, those forces have been fairly uniform across our species, yet there is plenty of variation among people in terms of their moral dispositions and beliefs.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But if we are unsure of the power of such critiques, then, as I have conceded, it seems illicit to rely on substantive moral beliefs to resuscitate our confidence in our moral faculties.In that case, internal coherence strategies are out.Independence strategies are out (given the autonomy of the moral).If formal strategies are also off the table, then it seems that all options for vindicating our”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 6. The Use of Substantive Assumptions in Assessing Genealogical Critiques
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: We must trace the warrant of our moral beliefs to the exercise of our moral faculties.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Nonmoral beliefs cannot by themselves justify positive moral beliefs.
- Rests on an assumption: The moral domain is autonomous.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Central philosophical premises are not empirically confirmable.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > d. The Empiricist Argument
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But evolutionary debunkers have done nothing to challenge the existence of a priori truths generally.Nor have they targeted a priori moral truths in particular.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is important to note that the moral realist does not have to vindicate (1) in order to fend off evolutionary critiques.All the realist needs is to show that (2) is inadequately supported.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 7. Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We don't seem to.D5 is an uncertain empirical hypothesis.The status of D3 is also uncertain, and depends on whether realists can succeed in developing a formal strategy for vindicating the reliability of our moral faculties.The best arguments for D1 -or at least, the best that I can think of and locate in the literature -also fall short of their intended aim.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 7. Conclusion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This example is especially important, because on realist assumptions (which debunkers are granting in order to generate skeptical implications), fundamental moral principles are conditionals that express necessary truths.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many moral beliefs appear to be intrinsically plausible and are very widely endorsed across times and cultures, are embedded in a broad network of mutual doxastic support, survive extended reflection and possess a high degree of credibility as implied by plausible general theories of warrant.The initial positive epistemic status of such moral beliefs is extremely high.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 7. Conclusion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Even if we suppose, for instance, that an evolutionary account of the origins of our moral faculties is the best one we have, it is still in many ways a just-so story, as previously noted.26”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > d. The Empiricist Argument
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [26]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We can confirm that selective pressures have had the indirect effect of leading us to moral truth only if we (1) assume the truth of some substantive moral or evaluative claims, and then (2) reveal how it would be adaptive to hold beliefs with that content.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > c. The confirmed doxastic effects of selective pressures
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In that case, moral realists would have to reject C3.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even if no single nonmoral source tells the entire explanatory tale, it may be that these combined sources, perhaps in conjunction with other nonmoral causes, entirely explain why we have the moral beliefs we do.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
hedgedconditional- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On this way of looking at things, C1 is either false or it begs a question against realists.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Economic, chemical, geological and biological facts cause things -or if, by virtue of their supervenient status, they are thereby deemed to be causally inert, then the Causal Argument would prove too much, by forcing us either to antirealism about every supervenient domain, or to skepticism about all of the claims in such domains.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“What the debunker needs is to show is that selective pressures have actually, as a matter of fact, exercised such a thoroughgoing influence.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > b. Insensitivity
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If moral facts cause nothing, then, a fortiori, they do not cause our moral beliefs.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So long as we are deeply puzzled about the reliability of our moral faculties, we are unable to restore confidence in them by enlisting beliefs generated by the now-questionable faculties.Neither can we restore confidence by bringing nonmoral beliefs to bear.So, it seems, we cannot restore confidence at all.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 6. The Use of Substantive Assumptions in Assessing Genealogical Critiques
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: We must trace the warrant of our moral beliefs to the exercise of our moral faculties.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Nonmoral beliefs cannot by themselves justify positive moral beliefs.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It would also provide a compelling case against the third premise of the Darwinian Argument: D3: There is no independent confirmation of the reliability of our moral facultiestheir reliability can be confirmed only by showing that they have generated moral beliefs in which we have a high degree of warranted confidence.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 6. The Use of Substantive Assumptions in Assessing Genealogical Critiques
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But when it comes to morality, this possibility is not yet confirmed.Nor can it ever be.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > c. The confirmed doxastic effects of selective pressures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the absence of moral causation, it seems that we must accept C1 -there would be some complete nonmoral causal explanation of our moral beliefs, even if genealogical debunkers have yet to specify the complete causal story.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Moral facts are causally inert (assumed for the sake of argument).
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nonnaturalists will have to take aim at either C1 or C3.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If we grant such entitlement, then it seems the genealogical critic has lost the argument before it has even begun.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But a wholesale philosophical skepticism is implausible, and is in any event self-undermining for debunkers, since they can achieve their aims only by advancing philosophical arguments.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > d. The Empiricist Argument
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But so long as there are any, and we are unwilling to em-brace a wholesale skepticism in such domains, we have reason to resist the Doxastic Effect Argument.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > c. The confirmed doxastic effects of selective pressures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further, instances of a priori apprehension are themselves physical events.(Or, if they are not, then we have excellent reason to reject the causal closure of the physical, and so the completeness of physical explanations of our a priori beliefs.)”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > e. The Causal Argument
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, if we have doubts about F's reliability, and if F ranges over an autonomous domain of inquiry, neither of these familiar strategies will work.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 6. The Use of Substantive Assumptions in Assessing Genealogical Critiques
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The moral domain is autonomous.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perhaps the mental operations that generate nonmoral synthetic a priori knowledge are the very ones responsible for generating our a priori moral beliefs.Were that so, we would have good, albeit defeasible, reason to consider our moral faculties reliable, at least with regard to the a priori moral beliefs they generate.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 6. The Use of Substantive Assumptions in Assessing Genealogical Critiques
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, so long as there is any plausible form of an is-ought gap, empirical claims cannot imply normative truths.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > d. The Empiricist Argument
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: There is some plausible form of an is-ought gap (an inference barrier between empirical claims and normative truths).
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further, once realists are able to defeat genealogical defeaters, they are then in a position to advance positive arguments that, for all we now know, are sufficient to establish the reliability of our moral faculties.”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 7. Conclusion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That leaves us in a position to confidently rely on paradigmatic moral beliefs.Some of these can be utilized to forge the needed bridge between our moral faculties' evolutionary origins and their reliability.That would suffice to to establish (1).”
§ EVOLUTIONARY DEBUNKING, MORAL REALISM AND MORAL KNOWLEDGE > 7. Conclusion
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
There is no independent confirmation of the reliability of our moral faculties; their reliability can be confirmed only by showing that they have generated moral beliefs in which we have a high degree of warranted confidence.
“D3.There is no independent confirmation of the reliability of our moral facultiestheir reliability can be confirmed only by showing that they have generated moral beliefs in which we have a high degree of warranted confidence.”
“For now, though, we can proceed on the assumption of its truth”
The authors state this as an assumption.
If there is decisive reason to believe that our moral faculties are unreliable, and if those reasons are accessible to us, then this defeats any warrant we might have for our moral beliefs.
“D7.If there is decisive reason to believe that our moral faculties are unreliable, and if those reasons are accessible to us, then this defeats any warrant we might have for our moral beliefs.”
“Both D7 and D10 strike me as extremely plausible, and I will assume their truth in what follows.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Those reasons (in the form of D1-D6, and the considerations that support them) are accessible to us.
“D8.Those reasons (in the form of D1-D6, and the considerations that support them) are accessible to us.”
“So I will proceed on the assumption that D8 is correct.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
If our moral beliefs are unwarranted, then we have no moral knowledge.
“D10.If our moral beliefs are unwarranted, then we have no moral knowledge.”
“Both D7 and D10 strike me as extremely plausible, and I will assume their truth in what follows.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
For all we know, there is a reasonable chance that evolutionary forces have thoroughly shaped our moral faculties in doxastically discriminating ways.
“U2.For all we know, there is a reasonable chance that evolutionary forces have thoroughly shaped our moral faculties in doxastically discriminating ways.”
“U2 is plausible, and I will assume its truth in what follows.”
The paper relies on this without support.
If, for all we know, there is a reasonable chance that our moral faculties are unreliable, then we must suspend judgment about all of our moral beliefs.
“U4.If, for all we know, there is a reasonable chance that our moral faculties are unreliable, then we must suspend judgment about all of our moral beliefs.”
“Though U4 is contestable, I will not argue against it here.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Nonmoral claims alone are incapable of certifying any substantive moral claims.
“on the plausible assumption that (trivial, aberrant cases aside 10 ) nonmoral claims alone are incapable of certifying any substantive moral claims.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Skepticism about nearly everything is erroneous.
“Assuming that such skepticism is erroneous”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Debunkers are trying to identify something especially worrisome about moral knowledge, rather than developing an argument for global skepticism.
“and also assuming that debunkers are trying to identify something especially worrisome about moral knowledge, rather than developing an argument for global skepticism”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Moral facts are causally inert (assumed for the sake of argument).
“let us now consider the worst-case scenario for the realist, and assume the causal inefficacy of moral facts.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
There is some plausible form of an is-ought gap (an inference barrier between empirical claims and normative truths).
“If we assume the existence of some such inference barrier, then unless one is willing to give up on the truth and credibility of all normative claims, we will have to accept that empirical inquiry alone will fail to reveal the truth and the epistemic status of our normative beliefs.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The first premise of the Empiricist Argument (E1) is true.
“I think that the first premise of this argument is probably true.”
The paper relies on this without support.
A priori knowable propositions are metaphysically necessary truths, with only irrelevant exceptions.
“With a few possible exceptions that are irrelevant for present purposes, a priori knowable propositions are metaphysically necessary truths.”
The paper relies on this without support.
A priori truths, or the facts they represent, do not cause anything.
“Such truths, or the facts they represent, do not cause anything.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Instances of a priori apprehension are physical events.
“Further, instances of a priori apprehension are themselves physical events.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
We must trace the warrant of our moral beliefs to the exercise of our moral faculties.
“On the assumption that we must trace the warrant of our moral beliefs to the exercise of our moral faculties, any doubts about those faculties will be inherited by those beliefs.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Nonmoral beliefs cannot by themselves justify positive moral beliefs.
“And further assuming that nonmoral beliefs cannot by themselves justify positive moral beliefs, we are left adrift if we are unable to answer the debunking critiques.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The moral domain is autonomous.
“Independence strategies are out (given the autonomy of the moral).”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is an inference barrier from is to ought.
“Indeed, given the truth of any plausible inference barrier from is to ought, we will have to rely on substantive moral or evaluative claims in order to positively establish the existence of a correlation between selective pressures and the reliability of our moral faculties.”
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The moral fixed points: new directions for moral nonnaturalism
Cuneo, T., & Shafer-Landau, R. (2014) · Philosophical Studies · doi:10.1007/s11098-013-0277-5 · Cited by 270
Self-citationDebunking evolutionary debunking of ethical realism
FitzPatrick, W. J. (2014) · Philosophical Studies · doi:10.1007/s11098-014-0295-y · Cited by 147
“1 For a very helpful reconstruction and critical examination of a variety of current evolutionary debunking arguments, see Shafer-Landau (2012).”
BackgroundOxford Studies in Metaethics 13
Sinclair, N. (2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198823841.001.0001 · Cited by 120
Evolutionary Debunking of Moral Realism
Vavova, K. (2015) · Philosophy Compass · doi:10.1111/phc3.12194 · Cited by 108
A liberal realist answer to debunking skeptics: the empirical case for realism
Huemer, M. (2015) · Philosophical Studies · doi:10.1007/s11098-015-0588-9 · Cited by 89
Metadata
- Authors
- Shafer-Landau, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Wisconsin–Madison
- Venue
- Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy
- Published
- 2013-01-01
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-38
- ISSN
- 1559-3061 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W330102725
- Semantic Scholar
- 3e748e37d295ef268384ad72c4677541f203d77f
- Cited by
- 177
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 75.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
- Keywords
- evolutionary debunking arguments, moral realism, moral knowledge, moral epistemology, moral sense, warrants, moral beliefs, moral intuitions
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-23, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-23 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
