Epistemology: intuitionism versus explanationism

Two philosophers come together to debate the question of whether objective, mind-independent moral facts exist. Mike says yes, Matt says no. They discuss whether we can ever have reason to go against our desires, whether beliefs about morality make any difference to our behavior, how we know things about the world, and the relevance of intuitions.

Check out the video of the debate on YouTube.

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.

Follow me on X-formerly-Twitter.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:45 Dr. Matt Lutz opening statement

00:11:49 Dr. Michael Huemer opening statement

00:24:43 Do moral obligations involve impossible kinds of reasons?

00:41:40 Can the error theorist make sense of doing something against one’s desires?

00:56:08 If moral facts disappeared, would we live our lives differently?

01:14:34 What’s wrong with intuition as a ground for moral knowledge?

01:29:05 How do we know logical and mathematical truths?

01:35:46 Dr. Matt Lutz closing statement

01:36:54 Dr. Dr. Michael Huemer closing statement