Abstract
In this thesis I try to spot and examine Peter Singer's arguments against the use of moral intuitions in moral methodology, the subjectivism argument and the evolution argument. I try to show that neither of these argument are fully persuasive, as Singer fails to sufficiently clarify the concepts involved. I also suggest a third argument, the partiality argument, which at times seems implicit in Singer's philosophy, yet which he has never tried making into an explicit and independent argument against the use of moral intuitions. After I make Singer's own moral method - the deductive top-down approach - more explicit and demonstrates its use, I suggest some practical implications for Singer's methodological stance, which can both be used to argue for paternalism and esoteric morality, as well as the importance of discussing moral issues in public and cultivating reason.