John Thomas Mumm

The figure of the amoralist has played a central role in the debate between moral judgment internalists and externalists. Unfortunately, the debate has led to an impasse based on conflicting intuitions. This chapter argues that one can move forward by drawing a distinction between two functions of moral language. Moral language primarily functions to allow human beings to deliberate together. However, it also functions to keep track of the assumptions and standards of evaluation of the community in which it operates. Externalists are correct to countenance the possibility of a character who sincerely and competently makes moral judgments without corresponding motivation. But internalists are correct to doubt that these moral judgments are in an important sense _genuine_. This is because the amoralist engages in moral discourse only in its secondary and derivative (though still important) function of tracking the current state of moral thought.