Objections to the Six Commitments — With Principal Replies

 

Objections to the Six Commitments — With Principal Replies

MEETING-OBJECTIONS-TO-THE-SIX-COMMITMENTS
│
├─ 1. C1-SUBSTANCE-DUALISM
│   ├─ Objection-Causal-Closure
│   │   ├─ Physical-events-have-only-physical-causes
│   │   ├─ Mental-causation-would-violate-conservation-laws
│   │   └─ Reply: Causal-closure-assumes-physicalism-it-cannot-prove-it
│   ├─ Objection-Interaction-Problem
│   │   ├─ How-does-immaterial-mind-move-material-body
│   │   ├─ No-mechanism-has-been-identified
│   │   └─ Reply: Interaction-is-a-problem-for-any-theory-of-mind
│   ├─ Objection-Neuroscience-Reduces-Mind
│   │   ├─ Brain-imaging-correlates-every-mental-event-with-neural-state
│   │   ├─ Correlation-is-taken-as-identity
│   │   └─ Reply: Correlation-is-not-identity-the-inference-is-a-fallacy
│   └─ Objection-Parsimony
│       ├─ Physicalism-requires-fewer-ontological-kinds
│       ├─ Dualism-adds-unnecessary-entities
│       └─ Reply: Parsimony-cannot-eliminate-first-person-subjectivity
│
├─ 2. C2-LIBERTARIAN-FREE-WILL
│   ├─ Objection-Determinism
│   │   ├─ Every-event-is-fixed-by-prior-physical-causes
│   │   ├─ No-genuine-alternative-possibilities-exist
│   │   └─ Reply: Determinism-is-a-substantive-contested-claim-not-a-fact
│   ├─ Objection-Compatibilism-Suffices
│   │   ├─ Freedom-means-acting-from-internal-states-without-external-constraint
│   │   ├─ Origination-is-unnecessary-for-responsibility
│   │   └─ Reply: Compatibilism-preserves-the-word-not-the-concept-authorship-requires-origination
│   ├─ Objection-Randomness-Not-Agency
│   │   ├─ If-not-determined-then-assent-is-random
│   │   ├─ Random-events-are-not-free-acts
│   │   └─ Reply: Origination-is-a-third-option-distinct-from-determinism-and-randomness
│   └─ Objection-Moral-Luck
│       ├─ Character-is-shaped-by-unchosen-factors
│       ├─ Responsibility-presupposes-what-cannot-be-justified
│       └─ Reply: The-argument-applies-equally-against-compatibilism
│
├─ 3. C3-ETHICAL-INTUITIONISM
│   ├─ Objection-Disagreement
│   │   ├─ Rational-people-disagree-about-moral-first-principles
│   │   ├─ Disagreement-shows-no-direct-apprehension-is-occurring
│   │   └─ Reply: Disagreement-in-mathematics-does-not-refute-mathematical-intuition
│   ├─ Objection-Cultural-Variability
│   │   ├─ Moral-intuitions-vary-across-cultures
│   │   ├─ Variation-implies-no-universal-moral-perception
│   │   └─ Reply: Variation-in-perception-does-not-entail-no-objective-fact-perceived
│   ├─ Objection-Epistemic-Regress
│   │   ├─ How-does-one-know-an-intuition-is-genuine-and-not-bias
│   │   ├─ No-criterion-distinguishes-real-from-spurious-intuition
│   │   └─ Reply: Foundationalism-provides-coherence-test-between-intuitions
│   └─ Objection-No-Mechanism
│       ├─ Science-gives-no-account-of-moral-perception
│       ├─ Intuitionism-is-mysterious-faculty-positing
│       └─ Reply: Science-has-no-account-of-logical-or-mathematical-intuition-either
│
├─ 4. C4-CORRESPONDENCE-THEORY
│   ├─ Objection-Coherentism
│   │   ├─ Truth-is-internal-consistency-within-a-belief-system
│   │   ├─ No-mind-independent-fact-is-accessible
│   │   └─ Reply: Coherent-systems-can-be-comprehensively-false
│   ├─ Objection-Pragmatism
│   │   ├─ Truth-is-what-works-for-the-agent
│   │   ├─ Correspondence-adds-nothing-beyond-successful-action
│   │   └─ Reply: A-belief-that-wealth-is-genuine-good-may-work-yet-remain-false
│   ├─ Objection-Fact-Access
│   │   ├─ We-cannot-step-outside-our-beliefs-to-compare-them-to-facts
│   │   ├─ Correspondence-relation-is-unverifiable
│   │   └─ Reply: Ethical-intuitionism-provides-direct-access-to-foundational-moral-facts
│   └─ Objection-Language-Dependence
│       ├─ Facts-are-always-described-in-language
│       ├─ Language-shapes-what-counts-as-a-fact
│       └─ Reply: Language-dependence-of-description-does-not-entail-mind-dependence-of-reality
│
├─ 5. C5-MORAL-REALISM
│   ├─ Objection-Relativism
│   │   ├─ Moral-truths-are-indexed-to-culture-or-individual
│   │   ├─ No-culture-neutral-standard-exists
│   │   └─ Reply: Cultural-beliefs-about-value-are-evidence-not-the-facts-themselves
│   ├─ Objection-Constructivism
│   │   ├─ Moral-facts-are-produced-by-rational-procedures
│   │   ├─ What-rational-agents-would-agree-to-is-objective-enough
│   │   └─ Reply: Constructed-value-depends-on-procedures-and-agents-not-mind-independent
│   ├─ Objection-Queerness
│   │   ├─ Objective-moral-facts-would-be-metaphysically-strange-entities
│   │   ├─ Nothing-in-physics-corresponds-to-objective-value
│   │   └─ Reply: Substance-dualism-already-admits-non-physical-reality-queerness-dissolves
│   └─ Objection-Motivation-Gap
│       ├─ Even-if-moral-facts-existed-why-would-they-motivate
│       ├─ Is-ought-gap-persists
│       └─ Reply: Ethical-intuitionism-closes-gap-direct-apprehension-moves-rational-faculty
│
└─ 6. C6-FOUNDATIONALISM
    ├─ Objection-Coherentism
    │   ├─ Justification-is-mutual-support-among-beliefs-not-linear-dependency
    │   ├─ No-belief-need-be-basic
    │   └─ Reply: Coherent-web-with-no-anchor-cannot-distinguish-truth-from-consistent-fiction
    ├─ Objection-Regress-Unfixed
    │   ├─ What-justifies-the-foundational-belief-itself
    │   ├─ Stopping-the-regress-at-a-chosen-point-seems-arbitrary
    │   └─ Reply: Foundations-are-self-evident-not-arbitrary-they-terminate-regress-by-their-nature
    ├─ Objection-Fallibilism
    │   ├─ Even-apparent-certainties-have-been-overturned
    │   ├─ No-belief-is-immune-from-revision
    │   └─ Reply: Fallibilism-applies-to-empirical-claims-not-to-necessary-moral-truths
    └─ Objection-Multiple-Foundations
        ├─ Different-foundationalists-identify-different-basic-beliefs
        ├─ Disagreement-undermines-the-claim-to-self-evidence
        └─ Reply: Disagreement-tracks-clarity-of-perception-not-absence-of-objective-foundation