[Diamond]

Moral Naturalism may be more along the lines of your view. This one is even more obtuse than the one on metaethics.

Cordially,

[edsheppa]

Yes, my view is in the broad category of ethical thought that article describes.

And yes the article is very obtuse. I started skipping after the "open question" part where I think the author makes a category mistake. Later I seemed to be siding with the "internalists" even though I think the author thinks I should be an "externalist." Evidently, as a moral naturalist, I'm supposed to think "amoralism" makes sense as a moral concept. But that's dumb since part of my naturalism is based on innate human feelings and the amoralist, as described, has none (about moral matters at least).

It's too bad these guys don't write more plainly, they wouldn't confuse themselves so much.