Moral realism, at least its classical version, claims that there are objective and necessary moral truths which we sometimes come to discover. When asked to motivate her view, the realist typically merely refutes sceptical accusations. At best, she appeals to first order moral facts to justify her second-order doctrine. All in all, it seems that if one believes in realism, it will be either without an argument or by begging the question. In either case, realism seems to rely on a form of dogmatism. Realism also stands accused, often implicitly, of licensing ethical dogmatism. After all, according to realism, morality is not a matter of opinion or of consensus but of truth and discovery. Nevertheless, this dual charge is flawed. It is not necessary to be dogmatic to endorse realism and realism does not support ethical dogmatism. To argue for these two claims, I offer a fourfold definition of dogmatism and I show that realism can avoid it. This reasoning suggests that ethics and metaethics do not come apart.
