ABSTRACT

Critics sympathetic to the extravagant-ontology objection reject thatclaim. Moore’s non-naturalism presupposes that ethical properties and natural properties are utterly distinct in kind. The most ambitious line of reply that Shaver offers to non-naturalists, whether classical or current, requires them to show that their moral metaphysics does not entail an extravagant ontology. Non-naturalists do not regard their own moral ontology as a kind of supernaturalism and generally attempt to deflate any implications of their non-naturalism seemingly incompatible with philosophical naturalism. Central to how Cuneo and Shafer-Landau would respond to the extravagant-ontology objection facing non-naturalism is their claim that certain true ethical judgments, the so-called moral fixed points, are not only true but capture propositions that are necessary for having morality at all.