Scholarlink

<p>Within the past twenty years, meta-ethicists have started to make their ontological commitments minimal. This has led to the creation of a view called <i>metaethical minimalism</i>. Metaethical minimalism is a meta-ethical theory that states some moral truths are truthmaker gaps, that is, truths without truthmakers. Such a view, though, has not gone without criticism. In this paper, we have two aims. First, we aim to focus on responding to unaddressed criticisms from Donelson (Three problems with metaethical minimalism. <i>34</i>, 1.) and by extension deal with worries from Enoch (<i>Taking morality seriously: A defense of robust realism</i>), Ingram (<i>Robust realism in ethics: Normative arbitrariness, interpersonal dialogue, and moral objectivity</i>), and McPherson (Against quietist normative realism. <i>154</i>, 223–240.). Mainly, we aim to diffuse the objections, but in some instances, we adopt parody objections so that if it attacks metaethical minimalism, it equally attacks its rivals. Second, we aim to show how, since the common objections to metaethical minimalism fail, it is an attractive meta-ethical view without any (ontological) costs.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Metaethical Minimalism Without Costs

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年9月1日

查看全文
  • Evan Jack,
  • Mustafa Khuramy

摘要

Within the past twenty years, meta-ethicists have started to make their ontological commitments minimal. This has led to the creation of a view called metaethical minimalism. Metaethical minimalism is a meta-ethical theory that states some moral truths are truthmaker gaps, that is, truths without truthmakers. Such a view, though, has not gone without criticism. In this paper, we have two aims. First, we aim to focus on responding to unaddressed criticisms from Donelson (Three problems with metaethical minimalism. 34, 1.) and by extension deal with worries from Enoch (Taking morality seriously: A defense of robust realism), Ingram (Robust realism in ethics: Normative arbitrariness, interpersonal dialogue, and moral objectivity), and McPherson (Against quietist normative realism. 154, 223–240.). Mainly, we aim to diffuse the objections, but in some instances, we adopt parody objections so that if it attacks metaethical minimalism, it equally attacks its rivals. Second, we aim to show how, since the common objections to metaethical minimalism fail, it is an attractive meta-ethical view without any (ontological) costs.