Reads to me like some kind of Kantian constructionism. You might enjoy reading some Korsgaard, who I think articulates a different slant on how morality derives from the nature of rational agents.
Personally, I'm skeptical of these varieties of meta ethics which rely on assumptions about the nature of an abstract rational actor. I think the constitutive nature of the rational actor is where the underlying principles really derive from, because you make all kinds of assumptions about what they want (e.g. not being used as a means to an end) and who is accepted as a rational agent (e.g. animals, slaves).
NoobFade t1_j9299ow wrote
Reply to The Ontology and Epistemology of Morality by contractualist
Reads to me like some kind of Kantian constructionism. You might enjoy reading some Korsgaard, who I think articulates a different slant on how morality derives from the nature of rational agents.
Personally, I'm skeptical of these varieties of meta ethics which rely on assumptions about the nature of an abstract rational actor. I think the constitutive nature of the rational actor is where the underlying principles really derive from, because you make all kinds of assumptions about what they want (e.g. not being used as a means to an end) and who is accepted as a rational agent (e.g. animals, slaves).