12-24-2025, 01:42 PM
I'm an undergraduate philosophy student grappling with meta-ethics, and while I find moral realism intuitively appealing—the idea that moral facts exist independently of our beliefs—I'm struggling to construct a defensible argument for it that doesn't eventually collapse into a form of naturalism or rely on a dubious metaphysical commitment. My professor keeps pushing me on the epistemological question: if objective moral truths exist, how do we access them, and why is there such persistent disagreement about them across cultures and individuals? For those who study or defend moral realism, what are the most compelling contemporary frameworks or arguments that address this epistemic challenge? Are there specific philosophers or papers that successfully bridge the 'is-ought' gap in a way that feels philosophically rigorous without resorting to theological foundations or moral intuitionism that feels question-begging?