A New Distinction in Meta-Ethics

The purpose of this paper is to make a new distinction in meta-ethics. Specifically, I will distinguish between externalism and internalism about normative principle validity (EINP). Given that the whole internalism/externalism schema has been applied to matters as diverse as mental content, epistemological justification, moral judgment, and reasons, it might seem as if there's no need to make further use of what is already becoming an overworn trope. But in this essay, I'll argue that my new employment of the distinction is not only conceptually original, in the sense that it isn't reducible to any other uses of the distinction, but also useful for clarifying our thought about normative principles. By making this new distinction, I mean to illuminate a certain conceptual space in which one can stake out various claims, and show how a range of philosophical theories can be mapped along two opposing poles.