As Eklund might be the first to tell you, this book is not systematic advocacy of a particular position. As I might be the first to tell you, it is an extremely rewarding exploration of a number of issues central to metanormative debates.

At the heart of the book lies a metanormative theorist, which Eklund dubs theardent realist, and their discomfort with a hypothetical case,1 which Eklund dubs Alternative. The case goes like this (18): (i) there are two different linguistic communities, A and B, where A has the thin, all-things-considered, normative word ‘ought’ and B has the thin, all-things-considered, normative word ‘ought*’; (ii) ‘ought’ and ‘ought*’ have the same normative role (as a matter of conventional semantics); (iii) ‘ought’ and ‘ought*’ are not coextensive (so they do not ascribe the same property); and (iv) community A's claims about what...

You do not currently have access to this content.