Abstract

Richard Boyd’s “Finite Beings, Finite Goods” is exactly the sort of response a philosopher hopes to evoke. It is perceptive and fair-minded in its reading and criticism of my work, illuminating the agreements and disagreements and the motivations on both sides, and showing points at which my position stands in need of more adequate development. At the same time it is much more than a response, offering a fuller and richer development, on several points, of what was already, in my opinion, the most plausible and promising version of naturalist moral realism. Here I will try to respond in a similar spirit, though on a smaller scale, taking up first issues about consequentialism, and helplessness, and then more metaethical issues, involving what I have called “the critical stance.”