The Elven Dogmas article has it’s points, but it isn’t perfect.
3: A Coherentist has good reason to use moral intuitions as evidence for moral conclusions (and arguably others as well).
6: As a prescriptive method, arguments using formal logic can be quite reasonable for detailing what a person SHOULD conclude, given the assumption that they want their beliefs to fit the evidence. (Depends on context)
7: The claim that “The best thinking is both cognitive and emotional” is only backed up for ethics. Other than goal selection (which cannot be purely cognitive), I don’t see any reason to believe it to be so.
8: Granted the absence of variants on the Evil Demon Argument (and arguably even if not so granted), some truths, if not much of any practical importance, can be demonstrated to be true in any possible world.
9: Treating thoughts as propositional attitudes may not reflect reality, but as a means to determine a thought’s correlation with reality they are, though not perfect, reasonable in the proper context.
11: Different individuals, particuarly across cultures, will have different ethical sentiments and thus different ethical goals on any level. Either you adopt subjectivism or nihilism and say there is no such thing as an objective ethics (admittedly reasonable but contrary to what the article seems to imply), or you accept that attempting to ethically reason based on common goals of morality doesn’t work.
The Elven Dogmas article has it’s points, but it isn’t perfect.
3: A Coherentist has good reason to use moral intuitions as evidence for moral conclusions (and arguably others as well).
6: As a prescriptive method, arguments using formal logic can be quite reasonable for detailing what a person SHOULD conclude, given the assumption that they want their beliefs to fit the evidence. (Depends on context)
7: The claim that “The best thinking is both cognitive and emotional” is only backed up for ethics. Other than goal selection (which cannot be purely cognitive), I don’t see any reason to believe it to be so.
8: Granted the absence of variants on the Evil Demon Argument (and arguably even if not so granted), some truths, if not much of any practical importance, can be demonstrated to be true in any possible world.
9: Treating thoughts as propositional attitudes may not reflect reality, but as a means to determine a thought’s correlation with reality they are, though not perfect, reasonable in the proper context.
11: Different individuals, particuarly across cultures, will have different ethical sentiments and thus different ethical goals on any level. Either you adopt subjectivism or nihilism and say there is no such thing as an objective ethics (admittedly reasonable but contrary to what the article seems to imply), or you accept that attempting to ethically reason based on common goals of morality doesn’t work.