chapter  6
19 Pages

Deontological Constraints and Dispute Resolution

Surprisingly, given its obvious inadequacies, the argument from disagreement has been one of the perennial favorite weapons of ethical anti-realists. There are many good reasons not to take the mere fact of disagreement to tell against either the objectivity of ethics or the truth of any particular objectivist theory of ethics.1 And I think that many ethicists, realist and anti-realist alike, would agree with that claim. However, it does seem that a large contingent of ethicists takes it to be important for an ethical theory to at least show us how, in principle, ethical disputes could be resolved, and to offer some hope that such resolution might actually be forthcoming in the future-I think that this demand is in large part responsible for the popularity of constructivist accounts of morality.2