Abstract

Many ethicists believe that moral statements can be true or false because there exist truthmakers for them. If these truth-makers are not conceived as natural but as moral facts „sui generis“ then we arrive at a position dubbed non-naturalistic moral realism (Non-NMR). This article tackles the question whether Non-NMR is persuasive. It is argued that metaphysics of supervenience and constitution between natural and moral facts will not suffice. Instead, Non-NMR should allow for moral standards or principles as abstract normative entities in its ontology. These abstract normative entities are instantiated in our actions and thereby determine their moral quality. If we call an action „good“ or „bad“ we do not describe an action’s natural features but the moral standard realized in it.