Ethical Naturalism and the Problem of Normativity [Hardcover]

We all have ethical beliefs, such as the belief that torture is wrong. Ethical beliefs purport to guide our behaviour rather than merely to describe the world, and this creates a puzzle: What could possibly make some of these beliefs be true?Ethical realistshold that there are ethical facts that make some of them true.Ethical naturalistscontend that these are ordinarynaturalfacts -- facts that are similar in all relevant respects to physical ones. This idea has seemed especially problematic. How could it be that any ordinary natural fact has the kind ofnormativity-- the action-guiding nature -- that our ethical beliefs point to? David Copp answers these puzzles and argues, surprisingly, that ethical naturalism is better positioned to explain the nature of normativity than its alternatives.We all have ethical beliefs. We may believe, for example, that torture is wrong, that compassion is a virtue, and that it is rational to promote what one values. These beliefs arenormative; they concern what we ought or ought not to do, or what is valuable or worthy of our choosing, or what a society must try to guarantee.The problem of normativityis to explain what the normativity of these beliefs comes to.What is itfor an ethical claim, an ethical judgment, or an ethical fact to be normative? All of the main problems in metaethics can be traced back to the problem of normativity. They arise in the form they do because ethics is normative.Ethical realistshold that there are ethical facts that are thetruth-makersof ethical beliefs -- facts such as the fact that torture is wrong -- facts that are similar in all metaphysically and epistemologically important respects to biological, psychological, and physical ones. Ethical realism faces a variety of objections, but the most important is its purported inability to account for the normativity of the ethical facts that it postulates. Some philosophers thinklx