A New Transcendental Argument for Robust Realism

Abstract

This paper presents a new argument for robust realism, the view about normativity that Philip Stratton‐Lake held. The argument has three main premises: that we cannot believe an error theory about all normative judgements; that trying to endorse the best version of expressivism makes us believe robust realism; and that trying to endorse the best version of reductive realism also makes us believe robust realism. I argue that combining these premises with some additional premises yields a transcendental argument for robust realism.