Read Nagel on Scanlon. I’m but a humble eavesdropper (grasshopper?) among giants, but here is the only offending paragraph:

Scanlon’s work is situated in highly contested philosophical territory. In my view, his interpersonal foundation for morality is more plausible than the impersonal foundation of impartial benevolence that is its main contemporary rival. He offers a persuasive explanation of what underlies many of the intuitions about individual rights, prohibitions and obligations that are often cited in opposition to utilitarianism.

Is the bolded section of the second sentence true? No, unless you select only for those—even among living Anglophone philosophers—who find one of these two theories compelling. There are plenty of Thomists in the world, for example, and that’s to mention only one alternative. There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of, etc.