Description
Book SynopsisIn this crisply written book, Hanno Sauer offers the first book-length treatment of debunking arguments in ethics, developing an empirically informed and philosophically sophisticated account of genealogical arguments and their significance for the reliability of moral cognition. He breaks new ground by introducing a series of novel distinctions into the current debate, which allows him to develop a framework for assessing the prospects of debunking or vindicating our moral intuitions. He also challenges the justification of some of our moral judgments by showing that they are based on epistemically defective processes. His book is an original, cutting-edge contribution to the burgeoning field of empirically informed metaethics, and will interest philosophers, psychologists, and anyone interested in how - and whether - moral judgment works.
Table of ContentsIntroduction: debunking arguments and the gap; Part I. Debunking: 1. Debunking explained: structure and typology; 2. Debunking defused: the metaethical turn; 3. Debunking contained: selective and global scope; Part II. Disagreement: 4. Debunking realism: moral disagreement; 5. Debunking conservatism: political disagreement; Part III. Deontology: 6. Debunking details: the perils of trolleyology; 7. Debunking doctrines: double or knobe effect?; Part IV. Conclusion: 8. Vindicating arguments.
