Enoch's 'just too-weird' objection shows that moral facts can figure in quasi-explanations of why we care about them, blocking the explanatory exclusion premise independently of regress considerations.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1 perspective

Reason against

Based on where you are in your exploration

Enoch(as a historical/scriptural reference): A figure from the Bible (specifically the Hebrew scriptures) who, according to the text, was taken directly to heaven without experiencing physical death.
Moral facts: Facts about goodness, reasons, and obligations; normative facts about what matters.
explanatory exclusion premise(as an assumption about how explanations work): The philosophical idea that if one thing fully explains an event, then other things cannot also be true explanations of that same event (because the job is already done).
just too-weird objection(as a response to concerns about moral facts): An argument that says if a theory leads to conclusions that seem absurdly strange or implausible, that's good reason to reject the theory, even if you can't point to a specific logical error.
quasi-explanations(as a type of explanation moral facts might provide): Explanations that work in a weaker or partial way—they might explain something without being perfect or complete explanations.
regress considerations(as an alternative problem that the 'just too-weird' objection avoids): Worries that arise when you keep asking 'but why?' endlessly, creating an infinite chain of explanations with no stopping point.

2 topics