Table Of ContentTaking Morality Seriously
This page intentionally left blank
Taking Morality
Seriously
A Defense of Robust Realism
David Enoch
1
3
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxfordox26dp
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford.
ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship,
andeducationbypublishingworldwidein
Oxford NewYork
Auckland CapeTown DaresSalaam HongKong Karachi
KualaLumpur Madrid Melbourne MexicoCity Nairobi
NewDelhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
Withofficesin
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile CzechRepublic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
SouthKorea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
OxfordisaregisteredtrademarkofOxfordUniversityPress
intheUKandincertainothercountries
PublishedintheUnitedStates
byOxfordUniversityPressInc.,NewYork
#DavidEnoch2011
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted
DatabaserightOxfordUniversityPress(maker)
Firstpublished2011
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,
storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,
withoutthepriorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,
orasexpresslypermittedbylaw,orundertermsagreedwiththeappropriate
reprographicsrightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproduction
outsidethescopeoftheaboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,
OxfordUniversityPress,attheaddressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisbookinanyotherbindingorcover
andyoumustimposethesameconditiononanyacquirer
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressCataloginginPublicationData
Dataavailable
TypesetbySPIPublisherServices,Pondicherry,India
PrintedinGreatBritain
onacid-freepaperby
MPGBooksGroup,BodminandKing’sLynn
ISBN 978–0–19–957996–9
1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2
To Naomi, Rakefet, Ronnie, and Yonyon, and in memory
of Reuven,
With love
This page intentionally left blank
Contents
Acknowledgments ix
1. TheView,theMotivation,theBook 1
1.1. Theview 1
1.2. Themotivation 8
1.3. Thebook 11
1.4. HowIdophilosophy 14
2. TheArgumentfromtheMoralImplicationsofObjectivity
(orLackThereof) 16
2.1. Thenormativepremise:impartiality 17
2.2. AnormativeargumentagainstCaricaturizedSubjectivism 24
2.3. Generalizing:response-dependence 27
2.4. Generalizingevenfurther:expressivism 35
2.5. Generalizingfurtherstill? 38
2.6. Objectivityagain 40
2.7. Appendix:neutrality 41
3. TheArgumentfromtheDeliberativeIndispensabilityof
IrreduciblyNormativeTruths 50
3.1. Harman’sChallenge 51
3.2. Parsimony 53
3.3. Indispensability–explanatoryandotherwise 54
3.4. Themovefromindispensabilityto(justified)belief 56
3.5. Indispensability:somedetails 67
3.6. Deliberationandintrinsicindispensability 70
3.7. Deliberationandtheinstrumentalindispensabilityofnormativetruths 71
3.8. (Further)supportingtheindispensabilitypremise:eliminatingalternatives 79
3.9. Conclusion 83
4. AndNow,RobustMetaethicalRealism 85
4.1. Moralityandnormativity 86
4.2. Ifyou’realreadyaRobustMetanormativeRealist,whynotalso
goforRobustMetaethicalRealism? 88
4.3. Categoricalreasons 93
4.4. Intheotherdirection:if,forinstance,youalreadyrejectmetaethical
expressivism,whynotalsorejectmetanormativeexpressivism? 98
4.5. RobustMetaethicalRealism:goingalltheway 99
viii CONTENTS
5. DoingwithLess 100
5.1. Naturalism,afterall 100
5.2. Fictionalismanderrortheory 109
5.3. Quietism 121
6. Metaphysics 134
6.1. Sheerqueerness 134
6.2. Supervenience 136
7. Epistemology 151
7.1. Hownottounderstandtheepistemologicalchallenge 152
7.2. Howtounderstandtheepistemologicalchallenge:explainingcorrelations 158
7.3. Interlude:Street’sDarwinianDilemma 163
7.4. Howtocopewiththeepistemologicalchallenge 165
7.5. Generalizing 176
7.6. Aquickandunsatisfyingthoughtaboutsemanticaccess 177
8. Disagreement 185
8.1. Worrieswecandispensewithratherquickly 186
8.2. Fromactualdisagreement,byinferencetothebestexplanation,
tothedenialofRobustRealism 187
8.3. Underminingthesupportagreementwouldhavelenttorealism 196
8.4. Fromdisagreement,viatheabsenceofsemanticaccess,to
thedenialofRobustRealism 198
8.5. Fromdisagreement,viainternalism,tothedenialofRobustRealism 200
8.6. Fromtheabsenceofamethod,deductivelyorbyinferencetothe
bestexplanation,tothedenialofRobustRealism 202
8.7. Frompossiblerationallyirresolvabledisagreement,deductively
orbyinferencetothebestexplanation,tothedenialofRobustRealism 207
8.8. Fromdisagreement,viatheabsenceofepistemicaccess,tothe
denialofrealism 213
8.9. Conclusion,andanoteonhigher-orderargumentsfromdisagreement 214
9. Motivation 217
9.1. Actingfora(specific)reason 219
9.2. Practicality 237
9.3. Whybemoral?AndwhydowhatIhavereasontodo? 242
9.4. Judgment-internalism 247
9.5. Existence-internalism 259
10. TallyingPlausibilityPoints 267
References 272
Index 287
Acknowledgments
Ialmostcan’tbelievethatthereisfinallyabook.Idon’tknowhowmanybook-writers
sharethisfeeling,buttomethethoughtthattherereallyisabook,thisbook,isquite
amazing.SoIamgenuinelygratefultoallwhohelpedingettinghere.
ThisprojectstartedasmydissertationprojectatNYU,whereIstartedin1998and
graduatedin2003.GettingmyPhDatNYUwasaterrificopportunityandexperience
forme,andsoIwanttostartbythankingthosewhohelpedmegetthere–myteachers
inTelAvivUniversity,andespeciallythosewhowerekindenoughnotjusttoteach
me philosophy but also to write reference letters when I applied to PhD programs:
ChaimGans,AndreiMarmor,andRuthWeintraub.
AtNYUIhadanidealdissertationcommittee:HartryField,TomNagel,andDerek
Parfit. I am sure their influence will be apparent in many places in this book, and
Iacknowledgewithpleasuremygratitudetothem.Ialsobenefitedtremendouslyfrom
my other NYU teachers, and just as much from my fellow graduate students. When
I think back of my NYU years, I miss the conversations and arguments with fellow
graduatestudentsmost.IwanttothankespeciallyJoshSchechter.JoshandIhititoff
philosophicallyfromveryearlyon,andconversationsthatstartedwhenwewerefirst-
yearstudentseventuallybecametwopapers,andamajorpartofmydissertation.Our
interactionisalsopresenthere,inChapter3.Iamgratefulforallhishelp.
My work environment at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem has been very
supportive (much support came from the HU Faculty of Law, even though no one
there is quite sure how work on metaethics is relevant to things that are more
traditionallyofinteresttolawschools;Iamespeciallygratefulforthatattitude).Ialso
hadtheprivilegetospendsixmonthsattheHebrewUniversityInstituteforAdvanced
Studies, coordinating a research group on metaethics. I gratefully acknowledge the
support of the Institute, and the valuable intellectual interaction with (and feedback
I received from) the other members of the group: Hagit Benbaji, David Heyd,
NadeemHussain,YairLevi,MarkSchroeder,SigrúnSvavarsdóttir,MarkvanRoojen,
RalphWedgwood,andRutiWeintraub.
While at the HU, I also benefited from the support of two grants of the Israel
Science Foundation (the more recent of which is grant 136/09), for which I am
grateful.
The HU environment is supportive, as I just said, but also quite demanding and
time-consuming. SoI’mprettysurethat thisbookwould nothave been written ifit
weren’tforakindinvitationIreceivedsometimeago–initiatedbyJohnDeigh,Larry
Sager,andMitchBerman–tospendayearasaHarringtonFellowattheUniversityof
Texas, Austin. Though work on this project started many years ago, as I already
