NOT SO PROMISING AFTER ALL: EVALUATOR‐RELATIVE TELEOLOGY AND COMMON‐SENSE MORALITY

  Douglas Portmore has recently argued in this journal for a “promising result”– that combining teleological ethics with “evaluator relativism” about the good allows an ethical theory to account for deontological intuitions while “accommodat[ing] the compelling idea that it is always permissible to bring about the best available state of affairs.” I show that this result is false. It follows from the indexical semantics of evaluator relativism that Portmore's compelling idea is false. I also try to explain what might have led to this misunderstanding.