Abstract

The paper focuses on H. Putnam’s The Fact/Value Dichotomy. The author considers Putnam’s arguments and he shows them seriously flawed in at least two ways: they are based on a wrong view on the history of recent metaethics, and they ascribe supporters of the fact/value dichotomy with assumptions they do not need. In the second part, the author outlines his view of the fact/value dichotomy, arguing that this distinction can be neutral with respect to different approaches to ethical knowledge and to the foundations of ethics