Here is the abstract for Stephen Finlay’s article.

bq. This article explains for a general philosophical audience the central issues and strategies in the contemporary moral realism debate. It critically surveys the contribution of some recent scholarship, representing expressivist and pragmatist nondescriptivism (Mark Timmons, Hilary Putnam), subjectivist and nonsubjectivist naturalism (Michael Smith, Paul Bloomfield, Philippa Foot), nonnaturalism (Russ Shafer-Landau, T. M. Scanlon) and error theory (Richard Joyce). Four different faces of ‘moral realism’ are distinguished: semantic, ontological, metaphysical and normative. The debate is presented as taking shape under dialectical pressure from the demands of (i) capturing the moral appearances; and (ii) reconciling morality with our understanding of the mind and world.

The full article is available “here”:http://www.blackwell-compass.com/subject/philosophy/article_view?article_id=phco_articles_bpl100.

Here is the abstract for Terence Cuneo’s article.

bq. Despite having occupied a peripheral position in contemporary metaethics, moral nonnaturalism has recently experienced a revival of sorts. But what is moral nonnaturalism? And what is there to be said in favor of it? In this article, I address these two questions. In the first place, I offer an account of what moral nonnaturalism is. According to the view I propose, nonnaturalism is better viewed not as a position, but as a theoretical stance. And, second, I critically engage with three recent arguments for moral nonnaturalism offered by Russ Shafer-Landau, Kit Fine, and Jean Hampton, respectively.

The full article is available “here”:http://www.blackwell-compass.com/subject/philosophy/article_view?article_id=phco_articles_bpl102.

There is also a joint “Teaching and Learning Guide”:http://www.blackwell-compass.com/subject/philosophy/article_view?article_id=phco_tr_bpl140 for these articles.

This is an open thread on Prof Finlay’s article, Prof Cuneo’s article, and the joint TLG.