Melis Erdur’s Moral Argument Against Moral Realism

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 22 (2):371-377 (2019)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
In a previous volume of Ethical Theory & Moral Practice, Melis Erdur defends the provocative claim that postulating a stance-independent ground for morality constitutes a substantive moral mistake that is isomorphic to the substantive moral mistake that many realists attribute to antirealists. In this discussion paper I reconstruct Erdur’s argument and raise two objections to the general framework in which it arises. I close by explaining why rejecting Erdur’s approach doesn’t preclude normative criticism of metaethical theories.
No keywords specified (fix it)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
Archival date: 2020-07-29
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
43 ( #54,690 of 2,439,394 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
15 ( #39,509 of 2,439,394 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.