A Second‐Order Moral Twin‐Earth

ABSTRACT How to understand metaphysical disputes is a disputed matter. Within this broader dispute, deflationist approaches read some of the traditional metaphysical debates as having metalinguistic negotiations at their roots. That is, some metaphysical disagreements are read as speakers commending each other to use some concepts over others. Thomasson's Easy Ontology exemplifies this view. In this paper, I introduce the Second‐Order Moral Twin‐Earth [SOMTE], a thought experiment designed to test whether such a deflationist strategy can account for disputes about metanormative realism. I argue that [SOMTE] shows two patently disagreeing positions within this debate whose incompatibility can't be properly characterised by this deflationist treatment. Given the commitments of the metanormative positions in dispute, I show that the strategy of translating the metaphysical disagreement into metalinguistic disputes proves unavailable. I conclude that [SOMTE] poses a challenge to the adequacy of this deflationist treatment in the metanormative domain.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Ratio
Published
2026-04-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/rati.70028
Primary Topic
Philosophy and Theoretical Science
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A Second‐Order Moral Twin‐Earth

Pyro Suarez
Ratio
Philosophy and Theoretical Science
article

A Second‐Order Moral Twin‐Earth

Pyro Suarez
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT How to understand metaphysical disputes is a disputed matter. Within this broader dispute, deflationist approaches read some of the traditional metaphysical debates as having metalinguistic negotiations at their roots. That is, some metaphysical disagreements are read as speakers commending each other to use some concepts over others. Thomasson's Easy Ontology exemplifies this view. In this paper, I introduce the Second‐Order Moral Twin‐Earth [SOMTE], a thought experiment designed to test whether such a deflationist strategy can account for disputes about metanormative realism. I argue that [SOMTE] shows two patently disagreeing positions within this debate whose incompatibility can't be properly characterised by this deflationist treatment. Given the commitments of the metanormative positions in dispute, I show that the strategy of translating the metaphysical disagreement into metalinguistic disputes proves unavailable. I conclude that [SOMTE] poses a challenge to the adequacy of this deflationist treatment in the metanormative domain.

Ratio
University of Bristol (GB)
Arts and Humanities Research Council
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 18%
Philosophy and Theoretical Science
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.