Abstract

In 1972 James Rachels published a challenging criticism of moral-point-of-view theories. It has never been answered. This is sur-prising, given that the species of theory to which it applies remains alive. In this paper I reply to Rachels’ criticism. My reply refers frequently to the work of G. J. Warnock and employs three distinctions that have been overlooked in the literature on moral-point-of-view theories. These dis-tinctions have relevance to more than Rachels’ paper. As shown in Sec-tion 6, they undermine a contemporary argument for moral subjectivism