The epistemological challenge to metanormative realism: how best to understand it, and how to cope with it
Open accessIntegrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Third-factor accounts appeal to an external factor taken both to causally help explain the belief that a given action is right and to metaphysically explain that the action is in fact right.
“What is characteristic of those accounts is that they appeal to an external,”
From Hope for the Evolutionary Debunker: How Evolutionary Debunking Arguments and Arguments from Moral Disagreement Can Join Forces (2022) · cites this paper as Enoch 2010
On a simple evolutionary account, we tend to judge an action right insofar as it promotes the survival of ourselves or our kin.
“On a simple evolutionary account, we tend to judge an action to be right in so far as it promotes the survival of ourselves or our kin.”
From Hope for the Evolutionary Debunker: How Evolutionary Debunking Arguments and Arguments from Moral Disagreement Can Join Forces (2022) · cites this paper as Enoch 2010
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 44 · Cited by 224
- Authors
- Enoch, D.
- Affiliations
- Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
- Corresponding author
- Enoch, David
- ORCID
- Enoch, David
- Venue
- Philosophical Studies
- Published
- 2009-01-20
- Volume
- 148
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 413-438
- ISSN
- 0031-8116 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-0883
- OpenAlex
- W2168634129
- Cited by
- 224
- References
- 44
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 36.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- autopapers.ssrn.com
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Philosophical Studies (publishedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Ethics, Aesthetics, and Art
- Keywords
- normative beliefs, normative truth, evolutionary explanation, pre-established harmony
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
