Mustafa Khuramy

Currently a philosophy student, researching meta-ethics; specifically arguments for moral realism and against epistemic error theory.

Issue: 0:0 (Early View)

Many moral realists have employed a strategy for arguing for moral realism by claiming that if epistemic normativity is categorical and that if this epistemic normativity exists, then categorical normativity exists. In this paper, we will discuss that argument, examine a way out, and respond to the objections people have recently raised in the literature. In the end, we conclude that the objections to our way out will do little in the way of motivating those who already do not believe in categorical normativity, thereby severing the power the aforementioned parity argument is designed to possess.

Issue: 14:1 (The fifty-second issue)

Many moral realists have employed a strategy for arguing for moral realism by
claiming that if epistemic normativity is categorical and that if this epistemic
normativity exists, then categorical normativity exists. In this paper, we will
discuss that argument, examine a way out, and respond to the objections people
have recently raised in the literature. In the end, we conclude that the
objections to our way out will do little in the way of motivating those who
already do not believe in categorical normativity, thereby severing the power
the aforementioned parity argument is designed to possess.
Keywords: Moral error theory, Meta-ethics, Companions in guilt, Nihilism.