Objectivity and Normative Discourse

  • Michael P. Wolf
  • Jeremy Randel Koons


We have already discussed a number of arguments for the view that normativity cannot be reduced or otherwise placed in the natural world, as many naturalists would insist it must be to remain legitimate. However, we have also argued that we should not thereby move to a form of non-naturalism that places the sources of authority for our claims outside the natural world. Such a choice was forced upon us by a set of false assumptions, and we can move beyond them with the sort of broadly pragmatist interpretation of normative discourse that we have offered in the last three chapters. On our account, normativity need not be placed as entities and properties in the world, but we also look to the world in which we are embodied in speaking and judging normative matters. We thus made the case that the incorporation of normative discourse with other forms of discourse about the natural world remained a worthwhile goal. This, we have argued, is a sense of naturalism worth embracing.


Social Practice Moral Theory Normative Theory Hard Case Justification Condition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Blackburn, Simon. 1993. Moral Realism. In Essays in Quasi-Realism, 111–129. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Brandom, Robert. 1994. Making It Explicit. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Brink, David O. 1989. Moral Realism and the Foundations of Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Copp, David. 2001. Realist-Expressivism: A Neglected Option for Moral Realism. Social Philosophy and Policy 18(2): 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dummett, Michael. 1993. Frege: Philosophy of Language, 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Kahan, Dan, Ellen Peters, Erica Cantrell Dawson, and Paul Slovic. 2013. Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government. Yale Law School. Public Law Working Paper No. 307. September. Scholar
  7. Koons, Jeremy Randel. 2000. Do Normative Facts Need to Explain? Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 81(3): 246–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Koons, Jeremy Randel. 2003. Consensus and Excellence of Reasons. Journal of Philosophical Research 28: 83–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kripke, Saul. 1982. Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Lance, Mark, and John Hawthorne. 1997. The Grammar of Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McDowell, John. 1984. Wittgenstein on Following a Rule. Synthese 58: 325–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Quine, W.V.O. 1953. Two Dogmas of Empiricism. In From a Logical Point of View, 20–46. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Sellars, Wilfrid. 1957. Counterfactuals, Dispositions, and the Causal Modalities. In Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. II, ed. H. Feigl, M. Scriven, and G. Maxwell, 225–308. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  14. Timmons, Mark. 1999. Morality Without Foundations: A Defense of Ethical Contextualism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Werner, Richard. 1983. Ethical Realism. Ethics 93(4): 653–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Wolf, Michael P. 2012. Boundaries, Reasons and Relativism. Journal of Philosophical Research 37: 205–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael P. Wolf
    • 1
  • Jeremy Randel Koons
    • 2
  1. 1.Washington, PAUSA
  2. 2.DohaQatar

Personalised recommendations