Is metaethics morally neutral?

Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 87 (1):24–44 (2006)
I argue, contra Dreier, Blackburn, and others, that there are no morally neutral metaethical positions. Every metaethical position commits you to the denial of some moral statement. So, for example, the metaethical position that there are no moral properties commits you to the denial of the moral conjunction of 1) it is right to interfere violently when someone is wrongly causing massive suffering and 2) it is wrong to interfere violently when only non-moral properties are at stake. The argument generalizes to all metaethical positions
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0114.2006.00246.x
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 26,162
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
Moral Realism: A Defence.Russ Shafer-Landau - 2003 - Oxford University Press.
Thinking How to Live.Allan Gibbard - 2003 - Harvard University Press.
Ruling Passions.Simon Blackburn - 1998 - Oxford University Press.

View all 14 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
How to Be Impartial as a Subjectivist.Emad H. Atiq - 2016 - Philosophical Studies 173 (3):757-779.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

111 ( #42,934 of 2,152,440 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

5 ( #162,788 of 2,152,440 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums