Then you wouldn’t be rejecting intuitions to justify the other, as in omnizoid’s comment (you’d be using intuitions to reject the other). Also the prior comment uses the phrase “permitting moral realism”—I wouldn’t have taken this to imply REQUIRING moral realism, independent of intuitions.
If the claim is that it would be inconsistent to consider intuitions as a means of justification, but then reject them as a means of justification specifically with respect to moral realism, that would be inconsistent. But someone can endorse mathematical realism and not moral realism simply by finding the former and intuitive and not finding the latter intuitive. They could still acknowledge that intuitions could serve as a justification for moral realism if they had the intuition, but just lack the intuition.
Second, note that omnizoid originally said
And it’s very tricky to develop a mathematical realism which doesn’t use an epistemology also permitting moral realism.
I don’t see anything tricky about this. One can be a normative antirealist and reject both epistemic and moral realism, because both are forms of normative realism, but not reject mathematical realism, because it isn’t a form of normative realism. In other words, one can consistently reject all forms of normative realism but not reject all forms of descriptive realism without any inconsistency.
Agreed that a difference in intuitions provides a perfectly consistent way to deny one and not the other, I don’t think omnizoid would deny this.
On the second point—presumably there would need to be an account of why normativity should get different treatment epistemologically when compared with mathematics? Otherwise it would seem to be an unmotivated distinction to just hold “the epistemological standards for normativity are simply different from the mathematical standards, just because”. I don’t doubt you have an account of an important distinction, but I just think that account would be doing the work. The initial “tricky” claim would hold up to the extent that identifying a relevant distinction is or isn’t “tricky”.
Right, I think we’re on the same page. I would just add that I happen to not think there’s anything especially tricky about rejecting normative realism in particular. Though I suppose it would depend on what’s meant by “tricky.” There’s construals on which I suppose I would think that. I’d be interested in omnizoid elaborating on that.
Then you wouldn’t be rejecting intuitions to justify the other, as in omnizoid’s comment (you’d be using intuitions to reject the other). Also the prior comment uses the phrase “permitting moral realism”—I wouldn’t have taken this to imply REQUIRING moral realism, independent of intuitions.
If the claim is that it would be inconsistent to consider intuitions as a means of justification, but then reject them as a means of justification specifically with respect to moral realism, that would be inconsistent. But someone can endorse mathematical realism and not moral realism simply by finding the former and intuitive and not finding the latter intuitive. They could still acknowledge that intuitions could serve as a justification for moral realism if they had the intuition, but just lack the intuition.
Second, note that omnizoid originally said
I don’t see anything tricky about this. One can be a normative antirealist and reject both epistemic and moral realism, because both are forms of normative realism, but not reject mathematical realism, because it isn’t a form of normative realism. In other words, one can consistently reject all forms of normative realism but not reject all forms of descriptive realism without any inconsistency.
Agreed that a difference in intuitions provides a perfectly consistent way to deny one and not the other, I don’t think omnizoid would deny this.
On the second point—presumably there would need to be an account of why normativity should get different treatment epistemologically when compared with mathematics? Otherwise it would seem to be an unmotivated distinction to just hold “the epistemological standards for normativity are simply different from the mathematical standards, just because”. I don’t doubt you have an account of an important distinction, but I just think that account would be doing the work. The initial “tricky” claim would hold up to the extent that identifying a relevant distinction is or isn’t “tricky”.
Right, I think we’re on the same page. I would just add that I happen to not think there’s anything especially tricky about rejecting normative realism in particular. Though I suppose it would depend on what’s meant by “tricky.” There’s construals on which I suppose I would think that. I’d be interested in omnizoid elaborating on that.