Philosophical analysis reveals distorted intuitions from imaginative resistance in moral thought experiments, highlighting the limited significance of normative internalism.
Key Points
To investigate whether the compelling thought experiments typically used to justify normative internalism genuinely support the view or are confounded by imaginative resistance.
Conducted a conceptual analysis evaluating normative internalism and its core claim that moral obligation depends on personal moral beliefs.
Applied the philosophical framework of imaginative resistance from the philosophy of fiction to standard moral uncertainty thought experiments.
Identified that intuitive reactions to standard thought experiments supporting normative internalism are confounded by imaginative resistance.
Concluded that eliminating these compromised thought experiments demonstrates the restricted practical relevance and theoretical importance of an internalist definition of 'ought'.