, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 35-42

First online:

Who Needs Valid Moral Arguments? (Dedicated to the Memory of R.M. Chisholm, 1916–1999)

  • Mark T. NelsonAffiliated withDepartment of Philosophy, University of Leeds

Rent the article at a discount

Rent now

* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.

Get Access


Why have so many philosophers agonised over the possibility of valid arguments from factual premises to moral conclusions? I suggest that they have done so, because of worries over a sceptical argument that has as one of its premises, `All moral knowledge must be non-inferential, or, if inferential, based on valid arguments or strong inductive arguments from factual premises'. I argue that this premise is false.

Factual premises moral conclusions moral knowledge valid arguments