Railton’s Resolution of Our Disagreements
Railton’s Resolution of Our Disagreements
This chapter resolves the disagreements which arose in the previous chapter. Metaphysical naturalists believe that there are no ontologically weighty non-natural normative properties and truths. But naturalists can believe that there are some non-ontological normative properties and truths. Some examples are truths about which acts are wrong, and about which facts give us normative reasons. We could justifiably believe that there are such normative truths, since this belief would not add anything mysterious to our ontology. These claims have led to the belief that there are some normative truths of a different kind that have yet to be considered. Furthermore, this wider view avoids or answers all of the previous chapters' objections to Normative Naturalism, such as the normativity and triviality objections, and what is called the soft naturalist's dilemma.
Keywords: naturalism, non-ontological normative properties and truths, normative truths, normative naturalism, normativity, triviality objections, soft naturalist's dilemma
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.
To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .
