In addition, it's not even clear that *most* philosophers or ethicists accept irreducible normativity and/or categorical reasons. Even taking the most recent philpapers survey (https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/5078), most philosophers are realists but only about a third of ethicists (philosophers with area of study = metaethics or normative ethics) accept or lean towards non-naturalism, which is the theory typically adopted by those who endorse irreducible normativity or categorical reasons. If you look at philosophers generally, it's about a quarter who accept or lean towards non-naturalism. And that's without considering the limitations of the survey to begin with.
Good points. I often see philosophers and nonphilosophers alike casually lump all realists in together and then leverage this as though they were a single bloc, even though they're not.
In addition, it's not even clear that *most* philosophers or ethicists accept irreducible normativity and/or categorical reasons. Even taking the most recent philpapers survey (https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/5078), most philosophers are realists but only about a third of ethicists (philosophers with area of study = metaethics or normative ethics) accept or lean towards non-naturalism, which is the theory typically adopted by those who endorse irreducible normativity or categorical reasons. If you look at philosophers generally, it's about a quarter who accept or lean towards non-naturalism. And that's without considering the limitations of the survey to begin with.
Good points. I often see philosophers and nonphilosophers alike casually lump all realists in together and then leverage this as though they were a single bloc, even though they're not.