Justification and Explanation in Mathematics and Morality

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
In his influential book, The Nature of Morality, Gilbert Harman writes: “In explaining the observations that support a physical theory, scientists typically appeal to mathematical principles. On the other hand, one never seems to need to appeal in this way to moral principles.” What is the epistemological relevance of this contrast, if genuine? This chapter argues that ethicists and philosophers of mathematics have misunderstood it. They have confused what the chapter calls the justificatory challenge for realism about an area, D—the challenge to justify our D-beliefs—with the reliability challenge for D-realism—the challenge to explain the reliability of our D-beliefs. Harman’s contrast is relevant to the first, but not, evidently, to the second. One upshot of the discussion is that genealogical debunking arguments are fallacious. Another is that indispensability considerations cannot answer the Benacerraf–Field challenge for mathematical realism.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
First archival date: 2014-06-21
Latest version: 13 (2015-03-07)
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Debunking Arguments.Daniel Z. Korman - 2019 - Philosophy Compass 14 (12).
How to Debunk Moral Beliefs.Victor Kumar & Joshua May - 2019 - In Jussi Suikkanen & Antti Kauppinen (eds.), Methodology and Moral Philosophy. Routledge. pp. 25-48.
Debunking Arguments and Metaphysical Laws.Jonathan Barker - 2020 - Philosophical Studies 177 (7):1829-1855.

View all 27 citations / Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
824 ( #4,007 of 50,353 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
43 ( #13,901 of 50,353 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.