Abstract

In this paper the author argues that empiricist ethical theories are not open to a number of objections which have often been supposed to be fatal to them. He argues, Firstly, That empiricist ethical theories do not necessarily commit the "naturalistic fallacy". He argues, Secondly, That moral judgments would have, If empiricism is true, A "pseudo a priority" which might satisfy the demands of those who think that they are genuinely a priori. He argues, Thirdly, That, Though moral judgments cannot be necessary, If empiricism is true, It can nevertheless be "necessary that we have the moral attitudes we do"