Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Philosophical analysis reveals distorted intuitions from imaginative resistance in moral thought experiments, highlighting the limited significance of normative internalism.
There has been a recent surge of interest in normative internalism, according to which what you ought to do depends on your beliefs about morality. This view has potentially wide-reaching implications for practical action, policy choice, and societal norms. The view is motivated by certain compelling examples, but in this paper I argue that such examples may not support normative internalism after all, for the phenomenon of imaginative resistance – well-known to philosophers of fiction – is at work here, muddying our intuitions. Once these examples are set aside, we get a more realistic view of the limited interest and importance of an internalist sense of ‘ought’.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Anna Mahtani (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: