ABSTRACT
In this chapter, I explain and critically assess four prominent metatheoretical objections against science-based arguments for moral realism and anti-realism. According to these objections, such arguments fail because (1) they impermissibly derive normative from descriptive propositions, (2) they beg the question against non-naturalist moral realism, (3) science cannot inform accounts of the meaning of moral concepts and (4) the conceptual is logically prior to the empirical. I show that none of these objections succeeds. Yet they reveal several potential problems with science-based arguments that must be accounted for.
