At the end the author doubts that it’s possible to refute moral realism at all.

That was an interesting paper.
 I will summarize the paper, which was interesting:

It goes through, one by one, the common denials of moral realism.

It does not present an argument *for* moral realism, but rather seems to act as a challenge. Put more simply, the paper is saying:

“HERE, MORAL RELATIVISTS: these are your arguments. I shall destroy them one by one”.

At the end the author doubts that it’s possible to refute moral realism at all.

It’s a “God of the gaps” position so to speak; an interesting stance as it does not need to define itself precisely, but rather it is a stance that says, “Go ahead. Fight my position. You can’t”.

Definitely an interesting read. Granted, I didn’t read it. I scanned the bold face and the conclusion and introduction. But the main argument was clear.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


− 1 = eight

Leave a Reply