Consider two possible worlds, **w₁** and **w₂**, that are ex...

Prompt

Consider two possible worlds, **w₁** and **w₂**, that are exactly alike in every non-normative respect. In w₁, however, agent A ought to φ; in w₂, A ought not to φ. A philosopher claims: 1. Normative facts necessarily supervene on non-normative facts. 2. Complete knowledge of the non-normative facts does not by itself enable one to know the normative facts. 3. No further normative facts need to be added to explain why the normative facts obtain. Are these three claims jointly coherent? Give the strongest interpretation on which they are coherent and the strongest argument that they are not. In doing so, distinguish metaphysical determination, explanation, entailment, and epistemic access. Finally, identify the weakest additional premise that would force an inconsistency. reply in Chinese