Abstract

Normative pluralists claim that there cannot be facts about what agents ought or “ought simpliciter” to do when an agent’s reasons from different normative systems (e.g. morality, prudence, aesthetics, etc.) don’t all support the same action. Moral philosophers have embraced the normative pluralist’s claim since at least Sidgwick appeared to do so toward the end of the 19th century. I cast doubt on the normative pluralist’s claim by highlighting some of its implausible normative-cum-metaphysical consequences.