Mathematics, Morality, and Self‐Effacement

Noûs (2016)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
I argue that certain species of belief, such as mathematical, logical, and normative beliefs, are insulated from a form of Harman-style debunking argument whereas moral beliefs, the primary target of such arguments, are not. Harman-style arguments have been misunderstood as attempts to directly undermine our moral beliefs. They are rather best given as burden-shifting arguments, concluding that we need additional reasons to maintain our moral beliefs. If we understand them this way, then we can see why moral beliefs are vulnerable to such arguments while mathematical, logical, and normative beliefs are not—the very construction of Harman-style skeptical arguments requires the truth of significant fragments of our mathematical, logical, and normative beliefs, but requires no such thing of our moral beliefs. Given this property, Harman-style skeptical arguments against logical, mathematical, and normative beliefs are self-effacing; doubting these beliefs on the basis of such arguments results in the loss of our reasons for doubt. But we can cleanly doubt the truth of morality.
(categorize this paper)
Reprint years
2016, 2018
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2017-09-24
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Two Dogmas of Empiricism.Quine, Willard V. O.

View all 36 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Debunking Arguments.Korman, Daniel Z.
Modal Security.Clarke‐Doane, Justin & Baras, Dan
The Ethics–Mathematics Analogy.Clarke‐Doane, Justin

View all 17 citations / Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
178 ( #21,409 of 46,296 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
31 ( #25,628 of 46,296 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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