Abstract:
Over the last decades, philosophers’ practice of addressing normative questions by employing moral intuitions has been challenged. A new set of methods, here termed the “The Big-N Approach” based on experiments on - and statistical analyses of - people’s intuitions have been developed and applied, partly as a criticism of and partly as a supplement to conventional approaches (here called Traditional Philosophy). The purpose of this paper is primarily to explore the room that lies between these two approaches and sketch the framework of and discuss the prospects of a third way, termed “The Small N Approach” to normative questions.
“The Small N Approach” shares traits with both The Big N Approach and Traditional Philosophy. Like the former, “The Small N Approach” embraces the use of social science methods in order to reach normative insights. Like the latter, The Small N Approach proposes methods that the student of normative questions can use themselves, if not in their armchair, then at least in their office, in order to distinguish between reliable and unreliable intuitions.
Furthermore, The Small N Approach is based on the principles of Reflective Equilibrium, as has dominated conventional approaches for half a century. It is argued that the “Small N Approach” follows the guidelines of Reflective Equilibrium to an even larger extent than conventional approaches do. However, the Small N Approach is not merely a combination of older approaches. By employing qualitative research methods from the social sciences, it also has its unique features, that can enhance transparency of future studies of normative questions.