Pragmatist quietism: A meta‐ethical system. By Andrew Sepielli, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 2022. vi + 231 pp. £55 (Hbk)

The pragmatism in the title of this original, thought-provoking (but poorly copy-edited) book is a methodological orientation according to which all “cognitive behaviors are ultimately… guided by assessments values and reasons,” as opposed truth or fact. pragmatist their “representationalist” opponent disagree “concerning relative priority fact value order inquiry” (p. 108). Pragmatism, thus understood, global thesis with potentially transformative payoffs for meta-ethics. quietism view that nothing can be relevant whether not hold an ethical belief except being associated 72). In particular, question independent considerations “external” thought, such metaphysics semantics discourse. other words, quietist asserts epistemic evaluative autonomy ethics 54). Quietism, applies thought insofar only holding beliefs distinctive internal ethics, values, what Sepielli calls “truthy” substantial representations world. Sepielli's unusual position contemporary meta-ethical landscape. It also has prominent theoretical precursors. element variation on theses recently espoused theorists broadly realist persuasion, including Matthew Kramer, Derek Parfit, T. M. Scanlon. philosophical critique conventional Huw Price later work Hilary Putnam Simon Blackburn. This would have benefited from deeper engagement at least one these writers, given each them some point views combine both elements. Admittedly, Blackburn's tricky get handle on, they undergone changes over time. (One time-slice evolving critically discussed Chapter 9.) contrast, Price's espousal (or he “global expressivism”) been relatively stable time arguably interchangeable important respects. response, it might said omission no big deal. Much says about implications reversing between meta-ethics goes beyond previously pragmatist's behalf others. Nevertheless, recognizable development established tradition. did come into existence out nowhere. book's more personal passages, describes how was drawn towards desire answer challenge skepticism so retain courage his first-order convictions. perceived need do will naturally arise anyone, Sepielli, who thinks judgments express genuine objective aspirations but there world could make true. partly combination generated growing literature moral error-theory, fictionalism, abolitionism, like. Pragmatist responds skeptical three main steps. (The details great deal complex than this, exposition. But whereas author 200 pages expound system, reviewer few.) first step claim purely issues “superficial,” “purely verbal,” way definitional superficial verbal. Roughly speaking, we decide those hostage around us truly is. Ethical ontologically conditions. second function closer connection feelings action paradigmatic matters verbal definition. extent normally care issues. They practical, representational. third construct notion correctness, truth, stops short postulating relationship representation world, while avoiding deflationary unrestricted minimalism (pp. 81–82). construction version many familiar under label “ideal advisor,” observer,” theory. On view, yours true just case member set that, if held otherwise ideal advisor, result advisor advising you perform right actions, where “otherwise advisor” someone suffers “none shortcomings we'd blame when accepts outlook astray advice action” 82–83). Assuming sense idea reasonable confidence give us, our beliefs. Perhaps surprise system implies should account ultimately circular. respect, distinguished company. What comes down favor constructed historical precedents motivated same epistemological metaphysical concerns versions pragmatism, version, supposed deflate 84). key examples paradigmatically superficial, verbal, disputes include William James's man chasing squirrel tree going round Karen Bennett's drink sour green apple liqueur martini glass martini. difference questions latter kind matter aforementioned two not. However, does seem further difference. A runs stationary definitely running squirrel. filled standard alcoholic ingredients involving terms become addressed possibilities sharply well defined. No doubt up analogous cases similarly Yet analogy were perfect respects, then every dispute involved I understand proposal, find hypothesis hard accept. When apply my own basic competence (which textual evidence overlaps substantially Sepielli's), plurality clear determinate (even negative one). Moreover, even after done best exclude wants classify “deep” virtue somehow mixed, applied, impure If so, It, therefore, remains much appeal explain philosophically puzzling particular. (I cannot entirely sure because number topics very liked see detail.) issue raised ring well-known problem faced logical positivists, led demise particular research program. case, arose classified along claims meaningless nonsense. arises former distinguish serious nonsense kind. concept propose correctness its aspirations. thing agree (as think should) wide range putatively interpreted “internal” therefore evaluative. another infer explanatory fruitfulness strategy fully autonomous. One concern route doing shall fail adequate conceptual centrality unmistakable aspects historically relied limits intelligible human beings ought act live, depend creatures worldly circumstance themselves.1