Abstract

Although Bernard Gert’s justification of morality is limited in what it accomplishes (as argued in Part I of this two-part essay), the deliberative structure he has set up in order to procure this justification is a quite fruitful one. With some modifications, this structure can be used to generate a significantly more powerful justification of morality than Gert’s. Part II of this essay shows how the moral system can be brought into direct engagement with common rejections of morality in a way that Gert’s justification cannot do. It is shown how persuasive arguments can be brought to bear against these anti-moral alternatives and in favor of the moral system.