Philosophy with Onbester

Cognitivism and Moral / Philosophical Peer Intransigence

Richard Rowlands' forthcoming Analysis paper on 'The Intelligibility of Moral Intransigence' presents a curious argument against moral cognitivism.  It goes roughly as follows:P1. Beliefs track perceived evidence.P2. Perceived peer disagreement is perceived evidence.Hence C1. Peer intransigent judgments are not beliefs.P3. Moral peer intransigence is intelligible: moral judgments can be peer intransigent.Hence C2: Moral judgments are not beliefs.The argument seems to prove too much, insofar Read more [...]