IS MORAL REALISM / COGNITIVISM CONVINCING? (25 marks)
(pink = out of spec content)
LOA: Yes, Moral Realism (and Cognitivism) is Convincing
CR: Nihilism objection to Moral Anti-Realism
INTRO: Moral realism is the meta-ethical theory that objective mind-independent moral
properties exist, either as natural or non-natural properties of the actual world. Moral realism
entails a cognitivist approach to moral language, meaning that moral judgements like
“murder is wrong” are truth-apt beliefs, which aim to describe the world. This is a widely
accepted theory which explains the meaning behind moral language and reasoning,
however, it faces issues such as the naturalistic fallacy, verification principle, and multiple
objections from Hume. Overall, I will still argue that moral realism (and cognitivism) is a
convincing theory, focusing on Moore’s intuitionism as the best account of moral language
and properties. The crucial reason that moral realism (and cognitivism) is convincing is that if
moral anti-realism was true, morality would be undermined and become nihilism. Therefore,
objective moral properties must exist.
PARA 1 - REJECTING NATURALISM:
P) Explain Naturalism (Mill Utilitarianism Example)
A) GE Moore: Open Question Argument (Weak)
C) Confuses Concepts and Properties
A) GE Moore: Naturalistic Fallacy (Strong)
E) Naturalistic Fallacy Strongly Suggests Naturalism is Incorrect
PARA 2 - MOORE’S INTUITIONISM (NON-NATURALISM>NATURALISM):
P) Explain Moore’s Non-Naturalistic Intuitionism as an alternative theory
A) Mackie: Relativity objection
C) Morality can be Objective And Relative (+ Phenomenology and Different Interpretations of
Life)
E) Strong Defense of Intuitionism, the Theory is Convincing
PARA 3 - NIHILISM OBJECTIONS TO ANTI-REALISM & NON-COG (CR):
P) Outline Moral Anti-Realism (Emotivism + Prescriptivism)
A) Nihilism Objection
C) We Can Still Have Moral Feelings
R) Insufficient Response, as These are Not Objectively Right/Wrong, so No Reason to
Intervene in ‘Wrong’ Acts
E) Moral Realism is More Convincing, Accepting Objective Moral Duties and Properties
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, moral realism (and cognitivism) is a convincing theory,
because it offers a coherent account of objective moral properties, independently of human
belief and feelings. Through Moore’s intuitionism, we see that moral truths are not reducible
to natural facts, providing a strong case for non-naturalist accounts of ethics, where moral
properties are discovered by our innate intuition. Despite challenges from Hume and Ayer,
these objections ultimately fail to disprove the existence of objective moral facts, particularly
when weighed against the nihilistic consequences of moral anti-realism. The crucial nihilism
(pink = out of spec content)
LOA: Yes, Moral Realism (and Cognitivism) is Convincing
CR: Nihilism objection to Moral Anti-Realism
INTRO: Moral realism is the meta-ethical theory that objective mind-independent moral
properties exist, either as natural or non-natural properties of the actual world. Moral realism
entails a cognitivist approach to moral language, meaning that moral judgements like
“murder is wrong” are truth-apt beliefs, which aim to describe the world. This is a widely
accepted theory which explains the meaning behind moral language and reasoning,
however, it faces issues such as the naturalistic fallacy, verification principle, and multiple
objections from Hume. Overall, I will still argue that moral realism (and cognitivism) is a
convincing theory, focusing on Moore’s intuitionism as the best account of moral language
and properties. The crucial reason that moral realism (and cognitivism) is convincing is that if
moral anti-realism was true, morality would be undermined and become nihilism. Therefore,
objective moral properties must exist.
PARA 1 - REJECTING NATURALISM:
P) Explain Naturalism (Mill Utilitarianism Example)
A) GE Moore: Open Question Argument (Weak)
C) Confuses Concepts and Properties
A) GE Moore: Naturalistic Fallacy (Strong)
E) Naturalistic Fallacy Strongly Suggests Naturalism is Incorrect
PARA 2 - MOORE’S INTUITIONISM (NON-NATURALISM>NATURALISM):
P) Explain Moore’s Non-Naturalistic Intuitionism as an alternative theory
A) Mackie: Relativity objection
C) Morality can be Objective And Relative (+ Phenomenology and Different Interpretations of
Life)
E) Strong Defense of Intuitionism, the Theory is Convincing
PARA 3 - NIHILISM OBJECTIONS TO ANTI-REALISM & NON-COG (CR):
P) Outline Moral Anti-Realism (Emotivism + Prescriptivism)
A) Nihilism Objection
C) We Can Still Have Moral Feelings
R) Insufficient Response, as These are Not Objectively Right/Wrong, so No Reason to
Intervene in ‘Wrong’ Acts
E) Moral Realism is More Convincing, Accepting Objective Moral Duties and Properties
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, moral realism (and cognitivism) is a convincing theory,
because it offers a coherent account of objective moral properties, independently of human
belief and feelings. Through Moore’s intuitionism, we see that moral truths are not reducible
to natural facts, providing a strong case for non-naturalist accounts of ethics, where moral
properties are discovered by our innate intuition. Despite challenges from Hume and Ayer,
these objections ultimately fail to disprove the existence of objective moral facts, particularly
when weighed against the nihilistic consequences of moral anti-realism. The crucial nihilism
