Abstract

It is a long-debated question in practical philosophy whether normative conclusions can be drawn from non-normative facts. Enoch takes sides in this controversy by denying that there can be normative output without normative input. This paper critically examines his argument from deliberative indispensability that moves from the normative indispensability of deliberation to the view that we are epistemically justified to believe that there are normative facts. I argue that the argument is defensible if some refinements are made. As I show, it further proves successful against the challenge of quasi-realism, i.e., the view that we are only internally, not externally, justified to believe that mind-independent normative facts exist.