The paper focuses on H. Putnam’s The Fact/Value Dichotomy. The author considers Putnam’s
arguments and he shows them seriously flawed in at least two ways: they are based on a wrong
view on the history of recent metaethics, and they ascribe supporters of the fact/value dichotomy
with assumptions they do not need.
In the second part, the author outlines his view of the fact/value dichotomy, arguing that this
distinction can be neutral with respect to different approaches to ethical knowledge and to the
foundations of ethics.
