5 found
Order:
  1.  67
    Evolutionary Debunking Arguments, Explanationism and Counterexamples to Modal Security.Christopher Noonan - 2025 - Erkenntnis 90 (1).
    According to one influential response to evolutionary debunking arguments against moral realism, debunking arguments fail to undermine our moral beliefs because they fail to imply that those beliefs are insensitive or unsafe. The position that information about the explanatory history of our belief must imply that our beliefs are insensitive or unsafe in order to undermine those beliefs has been dubbed “Modal Security”, and I therefore label this style of response to debunking arguments the “modal security response”. An alternative position, (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  2.  14
    Third-Factor Explanations in Epistemological Explanationism.Christopher Noonan - 2024 - Logos and Episteme 15 (4):475-496.
    According to explanationism about epistemic defeat, our attitude towards the explanation of our belief in P can sometimes defeat our justification for holding that belief. In this paper I argue for the superiority of a particular version of explanationism which is considered and rejected by Korman and Locke (2023). According to this position our belief in P is defeated if we are not entitled to believe it is either (i) explained by P (i.e econnected), or (ii) explained by some third-factor (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  3.  8
    Evolutionary debunking arguments, moral knowledge and underdetermination.Christopher Noonan - forthcoming - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy.
    Sharon Street’s influential Darwinian Dilemma argues that moral realism is incompatible with moral knowledge. In this paper I argue that Street’s argument cannot give us reason to reject moral realism. This is because the debunker’s own arguments imply that our evidence for the claim that we have moral knowledge underdetermines its truth. Furthermore, the final part of the Street’s argument, where she infers that moral realism must be false because we have moral knowledge, commits her to the view that underdetermining (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  4.  57
    An explanationist account of what goes wrong with third-factor replies to debunking arguments.Christopher Noonan - 2023 - Synthese 202 (3):1-26.
    Evolutionary debunking arguments use the evolutionary origins of our moral attitudes to argue that our moral beliefs are not explained by realistically construed moral facts, and that our moral beliefs are therefore unjustified. Third-factor replies to debunking argument rely on substantive moral claims to argue that, even if our moral beliefs are not explained moral facts, they are explained by some third-factor that also explains those moral facts. This is supposed to show that our moral beliefs can be justified even (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  5.  44
    Evolutionary debunking arguments and explanatory constraints on belief.Christopher Noonan - 2021 - Dissertation, University of Warwick
    Evolutionary debunking arguments claim that the evolutionary origins of our moral beliefs imply that those beliefs cannot be justified under the assumption of moral realism. In chapter one I outline three prominent evolutionary debunking arguments in the literature, and in chapter two I outline two types of “minimalist” replies to debunking arguments. These replies grant that our moral beliefs are not explained by the moral facts and then rely on substantive moral claims to show that our moral beliefs might still (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark