Abstract

This study is a critical examination of American philosopher Peter Railton's moral realism. The emphasis is placed on his synthetic naturalistic account. He holds that there are moral propositions which can be true or false; moral facts and properties are natural facts and properties; we can come to know or justify moral judgments through wide reflective equilibrium. I shall try to argue that his moral theory is a generally successful attempt to escape the Moorean charge of 'naturalistic fallacy' when advocating ethical naturalism. I will discuss both his reductionist and non-reductionist accounts and suggest that the latter is a better approach for a moral realist to justify moral beliefs. I will also critically discuss his arguments for instrumental rationality, ideal observer theory, internalism, justification of morality and his objections to non-cognitivism.