Incorporating your suggestion then, when people start to intuition joust perhaps a better idea than the two I mentioned would be to try and debunk each others intuitions.
Do people think this debunking approach can go all the way? If it doesn’t, it looks like a more refined version of the problem still recurs.
Particularly interesting stuff about prioritarianism.
It’s a difficult question when we can stop debunking and what counts as successful debunking. But this is just to say that moral epistemology is difficult. I have my own views and what can and can’t be debunked. e.g. I don’t see how you could debunk the intuition that searing pain is bad. But this is a massive issue.
That’s helpful, thanks.
Incorporating your suggestion then, when people start to intuition joust perhaps a better idea than the two I mentioned would be to try and debunk each others intuitions.
Do people think this debunking approach can go all the way? If it doesn’t, it looks like a more refined version of the problem still recurs.
Particularly interesting stuff about prioritarianism.
It’s a difficult question when we can stop debunking and what counts as successful debunking. But this is just to say that moral epistemology is difficult. I have my own views and what can and can’t be debunked. e.g. I don’t see how you could debunk the intuition that searing pain is bad. But this is a massive issue.