Dr. David Enoch, author of "Taking Morality Seriously: A Defense of Robust Realism," joins me to discuss moral realism versus anti-realism, objections from the moral error theorist, and my personal sticking points in affirming the existence of irreducible moral facts: moral disagreement across cultures and evolutionary explanations for our moral beliefs.

Buy David's book defending robust moral realism.

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating via⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠PayPal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy Me a Coffee⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

Feel free to follow me ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:07:23 Naturalism vs. non-naturalism

00:19:23 Why should we reject moral error theory?

00:32:32 The revisionary costs of error theory

00:43:34 Intuition as our only ground for moral realism?

00:47:45 The connection to ethical intuitionism

00:51:19 Objection #1 - Moral disagreement

01:03:18 Moral skepticism

01:06:20 Objection #2 - Evolutionary debunking arguments

01:16:16 Is God required to explain objective morality?

01:20:45 Are most philosophers moral realists?

Get full access to Miles K. Donahue at mileskdonahue.substack.com/subscribe