Study Questions

  1. Sinnott-Armstrong argues that disagreement over a moral claim suggests that the claim stands in need of confirmation. In what ways does he qualify this position? After these qualifications, do you find his position defensible? Why or why not?
  2. Sinnott-Armstrong admits that even if some confirmation is needed, that does not show that any inference is needed. He maintains, nevertheless, that this does not blunt the force of his attack against moral intuitionism. Why does he think this? Do you find his response plausible? Defend your answer.
  3. Sinnott-Armstrong cites a number of principles that, if applicable, indicate that our beliefs require further confirmation. His critics, Sinnott-Armstrong notes, argue that his position leads to moral skepticism. How does he respond? Do you find this response compelling. Why or why not?
Back to top