Moral Anti-Realism Essay Plan
Introduction:
- Define Moral Anti-Realism (MAR): mind independent moral properties.
- Associated with non-cognitivism, because there are no objective moral truths, moral
judgments are not truth-apt.
- Thesis: MAR is unconvincing, due to the issues with the following two anti-realist
theories: emotivism’s view of moral beliefs is irrational and inconsistent, and
prescriptivism’s view of moral beliefs is inherently subjective. Naturalism is more
convincing: responds to anti-realist arguments from motivation (Hume) and queerness
(Mackie).
Outline & Strengths:
- Hume’s Fork is intuitively appealing: it makes sense that to have a belief it needs to tell
you something about the world.
- Moral judgments are not beliefs, because they are neither MoF nor RoI. This means they
cannot be truth apt because they are simply attitudes, or passions.
- If this is the case, cognitivism is false, indicating that moral realism is false, because
there are no objective moral properties to compare against.
- Indicates moral properties don’t exist.
- MAR is compatible/ in agreement with moral relativity.
1st theory to be evaluated: emotivism.
Explain emotivism:
- Derives from Ayer’s verification principle critiquing moral realism (philosophically
meaningless).
- So, emotivism arises: moral judgments are expressions of approval/ disapproval
towards actions (give example).
Issue of emotivism:
- Degraded to propaganda when the main aim of emotivism is to influence and persuade.
- Can be used to confess or promote comradery instead.
- This is even more of an issue because as an anti-realist theory, moral disagreement
seems pointless for emotivism. It is impossible to have a reasoned debate because
ultimately, one’s moral views are one’s associated feelings, which cannot be disputed.
Ayer response:
- We can actually have a reasoned debate: we often disagree about the facts of the case,
so reason can be used in the argument to determine the true facts.
- Ayer says that even if the two are in agreement about the facts but still disagree in
terms of their moral viewpoint, they should accept different ethical viewpoints (cultural
conditioning).
Response to response:
- Unpersuasive response: is counter-intuitive that people can have opposing moral
viewpoints and not use reason to argue against each other.
- Also fails to deal with the fact that emotivism’s view of moral beliefs are inconsistent
and irrational.
- Irrational: based on gut feeling.
- So the issue of pointless moral disagreement remains.
- Inconsistent: preferring ice cream one day or brownie the next; stealing is wrong vs
right on a daily basis.
- No justification for switching moral viewpoints; morality becomes like another desire
which is nonsensical, there is more to it. Emotivism fails.
Introduction:
- Define Moral Anti-Realism (MAR): mind independent moral properties.
- Associated with non-cognitivism, because there are no objective moral truths, moral
judgments are not truth-apt.
- Thesis: MAR is unconvincing, due to the issues with the following two anti-realist
theories: emotivism’s view of moral beliefs is irrational and inconsistent, and
prescriptivism’s view of moral beliefs is inherently subjective. Naturalism is more
convincing: responds to anti-realist arguments from motivation (Hume) and queerness
(Mackie).
Outline & Strengths:
- Hume’s Fork is intuitively appealing: it makes sense that to have a belief it needs to tell
you something about the world.
- Moral judgments are not beliefs, because they are neither MoF nor RoI. This means they
cannot be truth apt because they are simply attitudes, or passions.
- If this is the case, cognitivism is false, indicating that moral realism is false, because
there are no objective moral properties to compare against.
- Indicates moral properties don’t exist.
- MAR is compatible/ in agreement with moral relativity.
1st theory to be evaluated: emotivism.
Explain emotivism:
- Derives from Ayer’s verification principle critiquing moral realism (philosophically
meaningless).
- So, emotivism arises: moral judgments are expressions of approval/ disapproval
towards actions (give example).
Issue of emotivism:
- Degraded to propaganda when the main aim of emotivism is to influence and persuade.
- Can be used to confess or promote comradery instead.
- This is even more of an issue because as an anti-realist theory, moral disagreement
seems pointless for emotivism. It is impossible to have a reasoned debate because
ultimately, one’s moral views are one’s associated feelings, which cannot be disputed.
Ayer response:
- We can actually have a reasoned debate: we often disagree about the facts of the case,
so reason can be used in the argument to determine the true facts.
- Ayer says that even if the two are in agreement about the facts but still disagree in
terms of their moral viewpoint, they should accept different ethical viewpoints (cultural
conditioning).
Response to response:
- Unpersuasive response: is counter-intuitive that people can have opposing moral
viewpoints and not use reason to argue against each other.
- Also fails to deal with the fact that emotivism’s view of moral beliefs are inconsistent
and irrational.
- Irrational: based on gut feeling.
- So the issue of pointless moral disagreement remains.
- Inconsistent: preferring ice cream one day or brownie the next; stealing is wrong vs
right on a daily basis.
- No justification for switching moral viewpoints; morality becomes like another desire
which is nonsensical, there is more to it. Emotivism fails.
