Spinoza’s metaethical synthesis of nature and affect

Abstract

In this essay, I evaluate four central metaethical readings of Spinoza’s moral philosophy in the literature: unqualified anti-realism, qualified anti-realism, qualified realism, and unqualified realism. More specifically, I discuss the metaethical readings of Charles Jarrett (unqualified anti-realism), Matthew Kisner (qualified anti-realism), Jon Miller (qualified realism), and Andrew Youpa (unqualified realism), each of which captures core aspects of this debate. My conclusions are that Spinoza is neither an unqualified anti-realist nor an unqualified realist and Spinoza’s ethical framework represents a qualified synthesis of realist (naturalistic) and anti-realist (affective) features.