Full Picture

Extension usage examples:

Here's how our browser extension sees the article:
Appears moderately imbalanced

Article summary:

1. Moral realism has been criticized for its first-order moral commitments, which some argue are objectionable. Realists are seen as committed to conditionals that suggest nothing is wrong if there are no non-natural facts, and that dog pain is not intrinsically bad if it does not share non-natural properties with human pain.

2. The objection fails because it assumes a narrow epistemological perspective and ignores the distinction between metaphysical and normative grounding relations. Realists can accept conditionals like (C1) and (C2) without endorsing morally objectionable views.

3. Realists can respond to metaphysical evidence about the non-existence of non-natural properties by rejecting the consequents of their conditionals or accepting them as junk knowledge. This response is similar to how we deal with other scientific or philosophical claims that conflict with our beliefs.

Article analysis: