Bernard Williams’s famous phrase ‘one thought too many’ has been variously interpreted. But Susan Wolf (2012) thinks that even the most sympathetic interpretation misunderstands its full implications. She argues that Williams and herself are sceptical about morality’s ability to provide determinate answers and its claim to supreme precedence. That is what this phrase implies. However, according to Wolf, even the most sympathetic interpretation of Williams’s claim surreptitiously smuggles in such an unconditional commitment to morality. I argue that we can save a version of the standard sympathetic view which does not smuggle in any such commitment. By preserving this version of the standard sympathetic view, we can preserve space for moral ruminations, sans any unconditional commitment to morality.
