Mooreanism conjoins at least two claims: that (i) normative properties are grounded in natural properties, and that (ii) normative properties aren’t defined by natural properties; normative properties are instead sui generis. Call (i) the _grounding claim_ and (ii) the _non-definitional claim_. I argue that Mooreanism faces a problem when formulated in the terms of contemporary postmodal metaphysics. Namely, under recent theories of grounding and real definition, the grounding and the non-definitional claims may be inconsistent with each other. This is a (...) problem, because Mooreanism is an important option for the normative non-naturalist. If Mooreanism were inconsistent, then only stronger forms of non-naturalism—including those positing no grounding relations between the natural and the normative—would be available. After rejecting a variety of other proposals for addressing the problem, I argue the problem can be resolved through a recently drawn distinction in the metaphysics of ground between constitutive and non-constitutive grounding. In addition to precisifying Mooreanism, I argue that the distinction between constitutive and non-constitutive grounding reveals space for further varieties of both non-naturalism and naturalism. (shrink)

This article aims to contribute to the largely neglected issue of whether metaphysical grounding – the relation of one fact’s obtaining in virtue of the obtaining of some other (or others) – can be given a reductive account. I introduce the notion of metaphysically opaque grounding, a form of grounding which constitutes a less metaphysically intimate connection than in standard cases. I then argue that certain important and interesting views in metaphysics are committed to there being cases of opaque grounding (...) and demonstrate that four representative accounts of grounding available in the literature are unable to accommodate such cases. This is argued to constitute a problem for those accounts that is likely to extend to other possible reductive accounts of grounding that employ the popular strategy of explaining grounding in terms of other hyperintensional phenomena. Unless the reductionist is willing to opt for some sophisticated modalist account, the possibility of opaque grounding cases thus provides indirect support for primitivism about grounding, a view that has previously been widely embraced but rarely supported by argument. (shrink)