Relaxing realism or deferring debate?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


In this paper I argue that so-called “Relaxed Realism” of the sort defended by T. M. Scanlon fails on its own terms by failing to distinguish itself from its putative rivals—in particular, from Quasi-Realism. On a whole host of questions, Relaxed Realism and Quasi-Realism give exactly the same answers, and these answers make up much of the core of the view. Scanlon offers three possible points of contrast, each of which I argue is not fit for purpose. Along the way I argue that Quasi-Realists can provide a better account of practical rationality than Relaxed Realists can, so insofar as they are distinct Quasi-Realism is superior.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)149-173
JournalJournal of Philosophy
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - 31 Mar 2019


  • meta-ethics
  • realism
  • quietism
  • Scanlon
  • expressivism
  • quasi-realism


Dive into the research topics of 'Relaxing realism or deferring debate?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this