Philosophical Studies

, Volume 175, Issue 7, pp 1577–1596 | Cite as

Epistemic modesty in ethics

  • Nicholas LaskowskiEmail author


Many prominent ethicists, including Shelly Kagan, John Rawls, and Thomas Scanlon, accept a kind of epistemic modesty thesis concerning our capacity to carry out the project of ethical theorizing. But it is a thesis that has received surprisingly little explicit and focused attention, despite its widespread acceptance. After explaining why the thesis is true, I argue that it has several implications in metaethics, including, especially, implications that should lead us to rethink our understanding of Reductive Realism. In particular, the thesis of epistemic modesty in ethics implies a kind of epistemic modesty about the metaphysical nature of ethics, if Reductive Realism about the metaphysical nature of ethics is true, and it implies that normative concepts are indispensable to practical deliberation in a way that answers an influential objection to Reductive Realism from Jonathan Dancy, David Enoch, William FitzPatrick, and Derek Parfit.


Normative ethics Metaethics Metaphilosophy Normative Concepts Reductive Realism Robust Realism 



Special thanks to David Copp, Terence Cuneo, Alexander Dietz, Stephen Finlay, Joe Horton, Nathan Robert Howard, Tanya Kostochka, Janet Levin, Michael Milona, Mark Schroeder, Caleb Perl, Abelard Podgorski, Ralph Wedgwood, and Daniel Wodak for insightful feedback on various drafts of this paper. Thanks also to audiences at the USC Speculative Society and National Autonomous University of Mexico for helpful comments.


  1. Bass, G. (2004). Jus post bellum. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 32(4), 384–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett, E. (2011). By our bootstraps. Philosophical Perspectives, 25, 27–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyd, R. (1988). How to be a Moral Realist. In G. Sayre-McCord (Ed.), Essays on Moral Realism (pp. 181–228). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brink, D. (1989). Moral Realism and the Foundations of Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carlson, E. (1995). Consequentialism Reconsidered. Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chang, R. (2013). Grounding practical normativity: Going hybrid. Philosophical Studies, 164, 163–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crisp, R. (2015). The Cosmos of Duty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dancy, J. (2006). Nonnaturalism. In D. Copp (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ethical Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. de Lazari-Radek, K., & Singer, P. (2014). The Point of View of the Universe: Sidgwick and Contemporary Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dietz, A. (2016). What we together ought to do. Ethics, 126(4), 955–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dunaway, B. (Manuscript). “The Metaphysical Conception of Realism”. Available at
  12. Enoch, D. (2011). Taking Morality Seriously: A Defense of Robust Realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feldman, F. (1986). Doing the Best We Can: An Essay in Informal Deontic Logic. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fitzpatrick, W. (2008). Robust ethical realism, non-naturalism, and normativity. Oxford Studies in Metaethics, 3, 159–205.Google Scholar
  15. Gibbard, A. (1965). Rule-utilitarianism: Merely an illusory alternative? Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 43, 211–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gibbard, A. (2014). Meaning and Normativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Goldman, H. S. (1976). Dated rightness and moral imperfection. The Philosophical Review, 85, 449–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Greenspan, P. S. (1978). Oughts and determinism: A response to goldman. The Philosophical Review, 87, 77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heathwood, C. (2013). Reductionism in ethics. In H. LaFollette (Ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Ethics. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Horton, J. (forthcoming). The all of nothing problem. The Journal of Philosophy. Google Scholar
  21. Hurka, T. (2014). British Ethical Theorists from Sidgwick to Ewing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jackson, F. (1987). Group morality. In J. J. C. Smart, P. Pettit, R. Sylvan, & J. Norman (Eds.), Metaphysics and Morality: Essays in Honour of J.J.C. Smart. Oxford: B. Blackwell.Google Scholar
  23. Jackson, F. (1998). From Metaphysics to Ethics: A Defence of Conceptual Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Jackson, F., & Pargetter, R. (1986). Oughts, options and actualism. The Philosophical Review, 95, 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kagan, S. (1998). Normative Ethics. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kamm, F. (1998). Morality, Mortality: Volume I: Death and Whom to Save From It. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Laskowski, N. (2015). Non-analytical naturalism and the nature of normative thought: A reply to parfit. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy.
  28. MacAskill, W. (2016). Normative uncertainty as a voting problem. Mind, 125(500), 967–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McKeown-Green, J., Pettigrove, G., & Webster, A. (2015). Conjuring ethics from words. Noûs, 49(1), 71–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McMahan, J. (2016). Torture and method in moral philosophy. In S. Anderson & M. Nussbaum (Eds.), Torture, Law, and War. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. McPherson, T. (2008). Metaethics and the autonomy of morality. Philosophers’ Imprint, 8(6), 1–16.Google Scholar
  32. Mollendorf, D. (2008). Jus ex bello. Journal of Political Philosophy, 16(2), 123–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nakano-Okuno, M. (2011). Sidgwick and Contemporary Utilitarianism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Parfit, D. (2011). On What Matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Phillips, D. (2011). Sidgwickian Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Portmore, D. (2011). Commonsense Consequentialism: Wherein Morality Meets Rationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rawls, J. (1972). A Theory of Justice. Wotton-under-Edge: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  38. Rawls, J. (1974). The independence of moral theory. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 48, 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Regan, D. (1980). Utilitarianism and Co-operation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ross, W. (2002). The Right and the Good. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ross, J. (2006). Rejecting ethical deflationism. Ethics, 116(4), 742–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ross, J. (2013). Actualism, possibilism, and beyond. In M. Timmons (Ed.), Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Scanlon, T. (1998). What We Owe to Each Other. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Schaffer, J. (2009). On what grounds what. In D. Manley, D. J. Chalmers, & R. Wasserman (Eds.), Metametaphysics: New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology (pp. 347–383). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Schneewind, J. B. (1977). Sidgwick’s Ethics and Victorian Moral Philosophy. Wotton-under-Edge: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  46. Schroeder, M. (2006). Cudworth and normative explanations. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy, 1(3), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schroeder, M. (2007). Slaves of the Passions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schroeder, M. (forthcoming). Normative ethics and metaethics. In T. McPherson and D. Plunkett (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Metaethics.Google Scholar
  49. Shafer-Landau, R. (2003). Moral Realism: A Defence. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shaver, R. (2014). Sidgwick’s axioms and consequentialism. Philosophical Review, 123(2), 173–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sidgwick, H. (1907). The Methods of Ethics. Hackett.Google Scholar
  52. Smith, M. (2004). Ethics and the A Priori. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sobel, J. H. (1976). Utilitarianism and past and future mistakes. Nous, 10(2), 195–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tannsjo, T. (2015). Taking Life: Three Theories on the Ethics of Killing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Taurek, J. (1977). Should the numbers count? Philosophy and Public Affairs, 6(4), 293–316.Google Scholar
  56. Timmerman, T. (2015). Does scrupulous securitism stand-up to scrutiny? Two problems for moral securitism and how we might fix them. Philosophical Studies, 172(6), 1509–1528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Timmons, M. (2012). Moral Theory: An Introduction. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  58. Walden, K. (2014). The aid that leaves something to chance. Ethics, 124(2), 231–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Walzer, M. (1992). Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
  60. Zimmerman, M. (2008). Living with Uncertainty: The Moral Significance of Ignorance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für PhilosophieUniversität Duisburg-EssenEssen, Nordrhein-WestfalenGermany

Personalised recommendations