DOCSLIB.ORG

Moral Reality

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Moral Reality Moral Reality. A Defence of Moral Realism Strandberg, Caj 2004 Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Strandberg, C. (2004). Moral Reality. A Defence of Moral Realism. Department of Philosophy, Lund University. Total number of authors: 1 General rights Unless other specific re-use rights are stated the following general rights apply: Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Read more about Creative commons licenses: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. LUND UNIVERSITY PO Box 117 221 00 Lund +46 46-222 00 00 Moral Reality A Defence of Moral Realism Caj Strandberg Department of Philosophy Lund University 2004 © Caj Strandberg ISBN 91-628-6257-X Printed by Media-Tryck, Lund University 2004 Contents Acknowledgements i Chapter 1. Realism in Meta-ethics 1. Introduction 1 2. Locating Moral Realism 2 3. Moral Realism in Terms of Irreducibility—A Defence 3 The minimal conception Moral realism in terms of mind independence Moral realism in terms of literal construal Moral realism in terms of irreducibility 4. Moral Realism and Its Opponents 18 Cognitivism contra non-cognitivism Success-theory contra error-theory Realism contra reductionism Realism and naturalism 5. Some Arguments against Non-cognitivism and Error-theory 30 6. Outline of the Argument 34 7. Concluding Remarks 37 Chapter 2. Analytic Reductionism and the Open Question Argument 1. Introduction 39 2. Analytic Reductionism 39 3. An Amended Version of the Open Question Argument 40 4. Defence of the First Part of the Argument 46 5. Defence of the Second Part of the Argument 54 6. Concluding Remarks 59 Chapter 3. Synthetic Reductionism and the Two Questions 1. Introduction 60 2. Natural Kind Terms 61 3. Synthetic Reductionism 64 4. The First Question 71 5. The Second Question 77 6. Concluding Remarks 80 Chapter 4. Realism and the Realist Formula 1. Introduction 82 2. The Realist Formula 83 3. Reusing Synthetic Reductionism 87 4. Concluding Remarks 90 Chapter 5. Explaining Moral Disagreement 1. Introduction 91 2. The Argument from Moral Disagreement 92 3. Types of Moral Disagreement 94 4. Moral Disagreement and Error 95 5. Widespread Moral Disagreement 98 6. Persistent Moral Disagreement and the Phenomenon of Normative Divergence 101 7. The First Reductionist Explanation of Persistent Moral Disagreement 105 Analytic reductionism Synthetic reductionism 8. The Second Reductionist Explanation of Persistent Moral Disagreement 114 9. A Note on Relativism 117 10. A Realist Account of Normative Divergence 121 11. A Realist Explanation of Persistent Moral Disagreement 124 12. Explaining the Persistence of Persistent Moral Disagreement 131 13. Concluding Remarks 132 Appendix. Persistent Moral Disagreement and Unknowable Moral Facts 133 Chapter 6. Explaining Moral Reason 1. Introduction 136 2. The Moral Reason Principle 138 3. Reductionism on the Moral Reason Principle 141 4. Realism on the Moral Reason Principle 143 5. ‘Why Should I Do What Is Right?’ 144 6. Three Objections 155 7. Analogous Normative Questions 158 8. Other Normative Questions 164 9. A Note on Rationalism and Realism 165 10. Concluding Remarks 168 Chapter 7. Explaining Moral Motivation 1. Introduction 169 2. Internalism and Externalism 170 3. The Internalist Argument 173 4. Internalist Considerations 177 5. The Amoralist and Her Critics 183 6. Advanced Amoralists 186 7. Externalist Explanations of Internalist Considerations 192 8. Smith’s Fetishist Argument 201 9. Reductionism, Realism and Moral Motivation 212 Analytic reductionism Synthetic reductionism Realism 10. Concluding Remarks 218 Chapter 8. Moral Dependence 1. Introduction 220 2. The Importance of Moral Dependence 221 3. General Dependence 226 4. Realist Dependence 229 5. The Realist Formula and Supervenience 239 6. Strong or Weak Supervenience? 240 7. Blackburn: Strong or Weak Supervenience—a Dilemma 242 8. Kim: Strong or Weak Supervenience—another Dilemma 249 9. Mackie’s Arguments from Queerness 254 10. Concluding Remarks 265 Chapter 9. Moral Explanations 1. Introduction 266 2. An Outline of Harman’s Argument 267 3. The Causal Criterion 268 4. The Best Explanation Criterion 272 5. A Dilemma for Harman’s Argument 281 6. The Pragmatic Criterion 284 7. Three Conceptions of the Causal Powers of Moral Properties 288 8. Concluding Remarks 296 References 299 Acknowledgements I have received a tremendous amount of help from a large number of people in writing this thesis. At one point, I toyed with the idea of inserting footnotes in the text where I would express my gratitude for each comment I have benefited from. But it turned out to be impossible—there would simply be too many of them. Although this put some doubt in my mind about my own contribution to the text, it made me also realise that philosophy may not be such a lonely enterprise after all. So I would like to take the opportunity to thank my ‘co-writers’ here instead. The person to whom I owe most gratitude is my supervisor Ingmar Persson. Ingmar was the one who suggested to me that moral realism is best understood as the view that moral properties are irreducible, an idea that finally got me start writing and which has provided the shape to this thesis. As a supervisor, Ingmar has been very considerate and generous with his time and wide-ranging philosophical knowledge. His constructive and though-providing comments during the writing process helped me improve the text significantly. He has also—which perhaps is most admirable—been surprisingly patient with my slow-wittedness and frequent confusion. Another person to whom I am very grateful is Wlodek Rabinowicz. Wlodek’s passionate interest in philosophy and his astonishing insight into numerous philosophical fields is a source of inspiration to me and other people at the philosophy department in Lund. He has generously provided suggestive and detailed comments on my drafts, which helped to greatly improve the text. I have also benefited a great deal from extensive written commentaries on individual chapters by Åsa Andersson, Sven Nyholm and Folke Tersman. The participants of the Higher Seminar in Practical Philosophy in Lund have provided me with innumerable helpful comments on the various drafts I have presented there; I am particularly grateful to David Alm, Åsa Andersson, David Bengtsson, Johan Brännmark, Dan Egonsson, Jeanette Emt, Ylva von Gerber, Lena Halldenius, Victoria Höög, Magnus Jiborn, Mats Johansson, Andreas Lind, Sven Nyholm, Jonas Olson, Erik Persson, Björn Petersson, Toni Rønnow-Rasmussen and Daniel Svensson for useful suggestions. Parts of the text have been presented at i Filosofidagarna (‘Philosophy Days’—national conference on philosophy) in Gothenburg, Stockholm and Linköping, and at the Higher Seminar in Practical Philosophy at Uppsala University. On these occasions, I have particularly benefited from valuable comments by Gunnar Björnsson, Jonas Olsson, Jan Österberg and Folke Tersman. During a stay as Recognised Student at the University of Oxford, I had interesting discussions about the open question argument with James Griffin. I am also grateful to Jonathan Dancy and Michael Smith for inspiring discussions about moral motivation and other meta-ethical issues. But life is not merely philosophy—not even at a philosophy department. Together with Jonas Josefsson I have had the privilege of organising two conferences in philosophy. Although the conferences demanded more work than I first realised, they also provided a welcome contrast to tricky meta-ethical problems. I would like to thank Jonas, Wlodek, Lena Gunnarsson, Johannes Persson and Ann Tobin for making the work with the conferences so pleasant. I have received generous financial support from Anders Karitz’ stiftelse, Birgit och Gad Rausings stiftelse för humanistisk forskning, Crafoordska stiftelsen, Dagmar Perssons fond, Humanistiska fakulteten vid Lunds universitet, Knut och Alice Wallenbergs stiftelse, Kungliga vetenskapssamfundet i Lund, Stiftelsen Erik och Gurli Hultengrens fond för filosofi, Stiftelsen fil. dr. Uno Otterstedts fond, STINT (The Swedish Foundation for International Cooperation in Research and Higher Education). I am deeply grateful to all these institutions for making my work possible. I would also like to thank Dennis Brice who undertook to check my English in the final manuscript at short notice. Last, but not least, I would like to thank all my wonderful friends. Although I have tried not to trouble them with my philosophical problems, they have meant more to my work than they can imagine. I am especially grateful to Jonas Rendahl for having solved the difficulties with my computer so readily. I dedicate this book to my parents, Annabella and Leif Strandberg, who have always encouraged and supported me. C. S. ii Chapter 1 Realism in Meta-ethics 1. Introduction One significant human activity is to pass estimations of various sorts. We appraise actions, persons and other objects from a number of perspectives, such as law, morality, prudence and rationality. The estimations that play the most important role for our relations to other people are presumably the moral ones. We say things like ‘It’s right to help people in need’, ‘I think it’s wrong of Amanda to betray her husband’, ‘She’s a typically good person’ or ‘She showed how bad she is when she said all those terrible things about him’. Admittedly, many moral sentences are not as plain as these, but they can be taken to imply such sentences.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1 Moral Realism Geoffrey Sayre-Mccord UNC/Chapel Hill
    Moral Realism facts that peoples’ moral judgments are true or false, and that the facts being what they are (and so the judgments being true, when they are) is not merely a Geoffrey Sayre-McCord reflection of our thinking the facts are one way or another. That is, moral facts UNC/Chapel Hill are what they are even when we see them incorrectly or not at all. Introduction Moral realists thus all share the view that there are moral facts in light of People come, early and easily, to think in moral terms: to see many things which our moral judgments prove to be true or false. Yet they needn’t, and as good or bad, to view various options as right or wrong, to think of particular don’t, all share any particular view about what those facts are, and they might distributions as fair or unfair, to consider certain people virtuous and others well not be confident of any view at all. When it comes to moral matters, there vicious.[1] What they think, when they are thinking in these terms, often has a is no less disagreement among realists than among people at large and no large impact on their decisions and actions as well as on their responses to what incompatibility between being a realist and thinking oneself not in a good others do. People forego attractive possibilities when they think pursuing them position to know what the facts are. would be wrong, they push themselves to face death if they think it their duty, Furthermore, being a realist is compatible with holding a truly radical view they go to trouble to raise their kids to be virtuous, and they pursue things they of the moral facts.
    [Show full text]
  • Saving Moral Realism: Against Blackburn's Projectivism
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 5-2015 Saving Moral Realism: Against Blackburn's Projectivism Paul James Cummins Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/895 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] SAVING MORAL REALISM: AGAINST BLACKBURN’S PROJECTIVISM BY PAUL J. CUMMINS A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Philosophy in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The City University of New York 2015 © 2015 Paul J. Cummins All Rights Reserved ii This manuscript has been read and accepted by the Graduate Faculty in Philosophy in satisfaction of the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. David M. Rosenthal (Date) Chair of Examining Committee John Greenwood (Date) Executive Officer Steven M. Cahn Stefan Baumrin Rosamond Rhodes Supervisory Committee The City University of New York iii Abstract SAVING MORAL REALISM: AGAINST BLACKBURN’S PROJECTIVISM by Paul J. Cummins Adviser: Professor Steven M. Cahn In the argumentative dialectic between moral realists and non-cognitivist moral antirealists each side in the debate is typically thought to enjoy a different prima facie advantage over its rival. Moral realism gains plausibility from its truth-conditional semantics because it can explain the meaning of moral judgments on the same basis as ordinary propositions.
    [Show full text]
  • When the Kingdom of God Became the Kingdom of Ends: Altruism’S Development Into a Normative Ideal
    When the Kingdom of God Became the Kingdom of Ends: Altruism’s Development into a Normative Ideal A Senior Honor Thesis Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation with distinction in Political Science in the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences by Benjamin T. Jones The Ohio State University December 10, 2006 Project Advisors: John M. Parrish, Department of Political Science (Loyola Marymount University) Michael A. Neblo, Department of Political Science (The Ohio State University) Table of Contents Abstract ii Acknowledgements iii Introduction 1 The Paradox at the Heart of Altruism 4 Defining Altruism and Normativity 6 What Are We Looking For? 11 Roadmap of What’s to Come 14 Part I Towards a Problem: The Ancient Debate over Public Life 17 Eudaimonia and Ancient Ethics 18 Plato and Aristotle 24 Epicurus and the Stoics 40 A Solution from an Unlikely Source 47 Augustine’s Reconciliation of the Two Cities 55 Conclusion 63 Part II Self-Love’s Fall from Grace: How Normative Altruism Developed out of the Augustinian Tradition 65 Entangled in Self-love: Augustine’s Normative Argument 67 Augustine Goes Secular 75 Kant’s Problematic Solution 83 Reworking Kant—And Altruism 89 Conclusion 91 Part III The Problems with Normative Altruism 93 Two Conceptions of Altruism 93 Evidence for Altruism on a Descriptive Level 95 Motivational Barriers to Normative Altruism 113 Changing the Way We Talk About Altruism 121 Conclusion 126 Bibliography 131 i Abstract In contemporary moral philosophy, altruism holds a place of prominence. Although a complex idea, the term seeps into everyday discourse, by no means confined to the esoteric language of philosophers and psychologists.
    [Show full text]
  • From Neural 'Is' to Moral 'Ought'
    PERSPECTIVES 34. Churchland, P. S. Brain-wise: Studies in Neurophilosophy Acknowledgements usual Humean and Moorean reasons. (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2002). I thank P. M. Churchland and P. S. Churchland for their close 35. Churchland, P. M. Towards a cognitive neurobiology of reading of the manuscript and invaluable advice about its struc- Contemporary proponents of naturalized the moral virtues. Topoi 17, 83–96 (1998). ture and content. In addition, J. Greene’s sceptical remarks were ethics are aware of these objections, but in my 36. Wallis, J. D., Anderson, K. C. & Miller, E. K. Single extremely helpful. J. Moll also provided useful preprints of his neurons in prefrontal cortex encode abstract rules. team’s work in this area. opinion their theories do not adequately meet Nature 411, 953–956 (2001). them. Casebeer, for example, examines recent 37. Casebeer, W. D. & Churchland, P. S. The neural mechanisms of moral cognition: a multiple-aspect Online links work in neuroscientific moral psychology and approach to moral judgment and decision-making. Biol. finds that actual moral decision-making looks Philos. 18, 169–194 (2003). FURTHER INFORMATION 8 38. Moreno, J. D. Neuroethics: an agenda for neuroscience MIT Encyclopedia of Cognitive Sciences: more like what Aristotle recommends and and society. Nature Rev. Neurosci. 4, 149–153 (2003). http://cognet.mit.edu/MITECS/ less like what Kant9 and Mill10 recommend. 39. Cacioppo, J. T. et al. (eds) Foundations in Social Neuro- limbic system | moral psychology | social cognition | theory of science (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2002). mind From this he concludes that the available 40. Rachels, J.
    [Show full text]
  • David Hume, Immanuel Kant, and the Possibility of an Inclusive Moral Dialogue
    [Intellectual History Archive 7, 2018] Comez, Inclusive moral dialogue DAVID HUME, IMMANUEL KANT, AND THE POSSIBILITY OF AN INCLUSIVE MORAL DIALOGUE Çağlar Çömez1 Boğaziçi University I. Introduction Immanuel Kant and David Hume developed moral theories that diverged from each other in many respects. Hume famously claimed that reason is the slave of passions and it cannot provide a motive for the human will to attain an end. Kant explicitly rejected this claim and equally famously argued that pure reason by itself can be practical and determine the will independently of our passions. Besides the power reason has to determine the will, the two philosophers also disagreed about the nature of moral judgment. Hume believed that our moral judgments arise from feelings of approbation and disapproval. According to him, when a moral agent reflects on an action, she develops certain sentiments about the moral value of the action and makes a moral judgment. Kant, however, believed that because there is a moral law we can appeal to regardless of our inclinations in order to identify the moral value of an action, we can make moral judgments that do not reflect our sentiments. My first main aim in this paper is to show that Hume’s anti-rationalist sentimentalist account of moral judgment faces an important problem. Hume’s account leads us to a point where a moral dialogue in which moral agents with conflicting sentiments about a morally significant situation can be included is impossible. I argue that Hume’s sentiment-based theory of moral judgment fails to lay the basis for an inclusive moral dialogue for moral agents who do not share the same set of sentiments with respect to a moral issue due to differences about the social contexts of their upbringing and education.
    [Show full text]
  • Moral Realism in Spinoza's Ethics
    Moral Realism in Spinoza’s Ethics Colin Marshall University of Washington One of Spinoza’s apparent goals in the Ethics is to revise commonsense morality. This raises a question: do Spinoza’s revisions show that he thought morality was somehow unreal? In this chapter I argue that, despite his revisionism, Spinoza's metaethical views in the Ethics are a form of moral realism, even though they contain anti-realist elements.1 In so arguing, I hope to bring Spinoza’s commentators and contemporary metaethicists into better conversation with each other. The terms “moral realism” and “moral anti-realism” entered the standard philosophical vocabulary only in the late 20th century, and many interpretive issues about Spinoza can be adequately discussed without using any contemporary metaethical categories. I hope to show, however, that attempting to classify Spinoza metaethically both raises important interpretive questions and shows that Spinoza’s views bear on various general metaethical issues. Many commentators, I believe, could benefit from closer attention to the details of contemporary metaethics, but contemporary metaethicists could also benefit from closer attention to the complexities of Spinoza's metaethics. Metaethicists use the moral realism/anti-realist distinction to characterize a debate that supposedly goes back at least to Plato. I begin, therefore, by discussing the contemporary understanding of that distinction (§1), which has received limited attention from Spinoza scholars. I then survey common reasons for anti-realist readings of Spinoza (§2), before describing the moral realist elements of his views (§3). I then consider the metaethical significance of his revisionism (§4), and conclude by saying why, all things considered, Spinoza is best classified as a moral realist (§5).
    [Show full text]
  • Moral Realism and Arbitrariness Moral Realism Is Extremely Attractive. It
    Moral Realism and Arbitrariness (published in Southern Journal of Philosophy 43 (1):109-129 (2005); http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2041-6962.2005.tb01946.x) Moral realism is extremely attractive. It seems to capture several of our important moral intuitions. It provides for the cognitivism which seems implicit in most commonsense moral discourse. It allows for genuine moral disagreement. Perhaps its most attractive feature is that it appears to offer us a way for us to say that (e.g.) the Nazis were objectively wrong - not just from our culture's perspective, or because of typical human emotional responses, but truly wrong. They are out of accord with the facts of the world. We can show them that they are wrong, and that if they came to understand the universe properly they would see that their actions are immoral and, further, that this gives them reason to stop performing them. They would be just as mistaken as if they declared that 2+2=5, that water is HCL, or that whales have gills. In this paper I argue that the appeal of moral realism, particularly with respect to this last virtue, is largely illusory. I focus on moral realism, but intend the arguments raised to apply equally to other normative realisms. I argue (i) that choosing to abide by such normative facts would be as arbitrary as choosing to abide by the mere preferences of a God (a difficulty akin to the Euthyphro dilemma raised for divine command theorists); in both cases we would lack reason to prefer these standards to alternative codes of conduct.
    [Show full text]
  • An Ontological Proof of Moral Realism Michael Huemer
    [Published in Social Philosophy & Policy 30 (2013): 259-79. Official version: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-philosophy- and-policy/article/an-ontological-proof-of-moral- realism/8D2E2B9D45901C5E6AED29B888747A45.] An Ontological Proof of Moral Realism Michael Huemer While there is no general agreement on whether moral realism is true, there is general agreement on at least some of the objective moral obligations that we have if moral realism is true. Given that moral realism might be true, and given that we know some of the things we ought to do if it is true, we have a reason to do those things. Furthermore, this reason is itself an objective moral reason. Thus, we have at least one objective moral reason. In the following sections, I elaborate on the preceding argument. I begin by clarifying the conceptions of moral realism, practical reasons, and probability used in the argument, after which I set out the argument in more detail, offering support for each premise. I then address a series of potential objections. Ultimately, we shall see that, given that moral realism might be true, it is true. 1. Conceptual Background 1.1. Practical Reasons: First Person vs. Third Person Practical reasons are considerations that count for or against behaving in a particular way. To say that there is a reason to perform an action is not to say that the action would be reasonable all things considered; it is only to say that there is at least some consideration in favor of the act. This consideration might well be outweighed by other considerations.
    [Show full text]
  • Moral Mental States: Four Methods in Metaethics
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 2011 Moral Mental States: Four Methods in Metaethics Christopher Alen Sula The Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/1484 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] i Moral Mental States Four Methods in Metaethics Christopher Alen Sula A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Philosophy in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The City University of New York 2011 ii © 2011 CHRISTOPHER ALEN SULA All Rights Reserved iii This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Philosophy in satisfaction of the Dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. David M. Rosenthal ___________________ _____________________________________________ Date Chair of Examining Committee Iakovos Vasiliou ___________________ _____________________________________________ Date Executive Officer Catherine Wilson (advisor) . Stefan Bernard Baumrin ______ Samir Chopra , Douglas Lackey . Supervisory Committee THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK iv Abstract Moral Mental States: Four Methods in Metaethics Christopher Alen Sula Advisor: Catherine Wilson Metaethics has traditionally focused on the meaning of moral statements, the referents of moral terms, and the justification of moral claims. This dissertation focuses on the thoughts in virtue of which our moral statements have their meaning and our moral claims have their content. These “moral mental states,” as I call them, are best understood as having both intentional and volitional aspects and, corresponding to each aspect, as having satisfaction conditions involving both correctness and success in action.
    [Show full text]
  • Railton's Reductive Moral Realism
    RAILTON’S REDUCTIVE MORAL REALISM A thesis submitted to Kent State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts By Garrett Rauckhorst May 2013 Thesis written by Garrett Rauckhorst B.A., Hiram College, 2007 M.A., Kent State University, 2013 Approved by Michael Byron_______________________________, Advisor David Odell-Scott____________________________, Chair, Department of Philosophy Raymond Craig______________________________, Assoc. Dean, College of Arts and Sciences ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................................ v CHAPTER 0.INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1 0.1 Metaethics ................................................................................................................... 1 0.2 The Outline .................................................................................................................. 2 0.3 Purpose ....................................................................................................................... 3 1. RAILTON’S REDUCTIVE MORAL REALISM ............................................................................ 5 1.1 The Fact/Value Distinction ........................................................................................... 5 1.1.1 The Argument from Rational Determinability ...........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • "Realism, Moral" In: the International Encyclopedia of Ethics
    1 Realism, Moral Geoffrey Sayre-McCord Introduction Moral realists maintain (1) that in making moral judgments – for instance, that cruelty is wrong or generosity required or justice a virtue – people are purporting to report moral facts (and not just expressing their tastes or preferences) and (2) that there are such facts to report, so that some such claims are actually true and the world is, really, in those cases as claimed. In taking this stand, moral realists see themselves as capturing and defending common sense. Indeed, it is fair to say that many, and perhaps most, people think moral realism is obviously the correct position, even as they recognize that people regularly disagree deeply about just what the moral facts are (see properties, moral; truth in ethics). Yet there are substantial reasons for suspecting that, in fact, common sense and common conviction are misguided or, alternatively, misunderstood by moral realists. In particular, there are reasons to suspect both that if moral claims do purport to report moral facts they fail, because there are no such facts (as error theorists argue) (see error theory) and that moral claims do not actually purport to report facts at all but rather express attitudes or commitments (as non-cognitivists argue) (see non-cognitivism; emotivism). The Error Theory According to error theorists, though our moral judgments purport to report moral facts they all fail, because there are no such facts to report. A frequent theme in their arguments is that a clear-eyed appreciation of what gets valorized as “moral,” and of why it is given this status, reveals non-moral (and often dark) forces.
    [Show full text]
  • Moral Realism Is Moral Relativism
    Moral Realism is Moral Relativism Gilbert Harman Princeton University June 25, 2012 Abstract Moral relativism, as I have come to understand it in the light of Cornell Moral Realism, is the claim that there is not a single objec- tively true morality but only many different moralities, just as there is not a single true language but only many different languages. Different people may have different moralities as reflected in the way they act and the ways they react to the actions of others and there is no objec- tive way to show that one of these moralities is the only correct one. An account of what a morality is and what it is to have a particular morality might resemble David Lewis’ account of what a language is and what it is to have a language. Moral theory might emulate cur- rent linguistic theory in various ways. However, moral relativism is not a semantic claim about how to understand moral judgments. For example, it is not the view that a moral judgments is implicitly rela- tional with a hidden parameter representing the morality in relation to which the judgment is made. To repeat: moral relativism is the claim that that there is not a single objectively true morality but only many different moralities. In this paper, I explain my understanding of moral relativism and indicate why I reject certain objections to it. I mention considerations 1 that I take to support it, but I do not suppose that these considerations will be persuasive to all of those who do not already accept it.
    [Show full text]