{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016506189821182942, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.3304347826086955, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Internalism and Externalism in Ethics Applied to the Liberal-Communitarian Debate

This article addresses the question of whether we can explain moral action in terms of an attraction to a moral ideal. It defends T. H. Green's internalist ethics against John Skorupski's externalist claim that moral ideals are optional whereas moral duties are not. A parallel is drawn between the Internalism and Externalism debate in ethics and the liberal-communitarian debate in political theory. My defence of Internalism offers new arguments in support of communitarian approaches to the nature of moral action. Green's internalist ethics provides the communitarian discourse with the universalist moral dimension it traditionally lacks.