ASSESS ANTI-REALISM
Moral properties aren’t mind-independent or cognitivist. Error theory fails as it takes the cognitivist stance and
emotivism is self-refuting. However, anti-realism is successful in terms of Prescriptivism as it gets a balance
between recognising moral properties can’t be objective, and understanding why we often use/ talk of them
in such an objective way (eg. the law)
E ective at solving issues of
De ne realism (speci cally non-naturalism) cognitivism but ine ective in an
explanation for why moral
Defeating ET: Argument from queerness statements are meaningless
Provides a very unsubstantial
Intuitionism explanation. Knowing nothing
If there’s no rational element
to it, then what’s the point.
ET: Argument for relativity certain about the nature or
intuition is a problem.
This puts highly important
foundations to our society
ET: moral statements are meaningless not false under question like laws and
regulations.
Substantial
NC theory like EMOTIVISM resolves this
We often don’t have same factual
issue moral discussion becomes pointless information. In theory, yes, maybe
we would if we did, but that isn’t
Factual disagreements re ective of the real world. It
A.J. Ayers veri cation principle is self-refuting seems emotivism only has
explanatory power
in a perfect world? But
PRESCRIPTIVISM resolves issue: moral discussion we don’t live in a
Weak issue Moral nihilism We can’t follow a principle that doesn’t even pass perfect world and
its own conditions. Weak foundation for a theory therefore it’s useless.
Self-refuting Explains why we can formulate things such as
The only substantial issue directed towards prescriptivism is self- laws, we are prescribing commands, that people
refuting as choosing not to be moral is a moral decision. Therefore, can reject (e.g. before passing legislation). That
prescriptivism has the best explanatory power of the theories. then can be universalised.
fffl
fi ff fi fi
Moral properties aren’t mind-independent or cognitivist. Error theory fails as it takes the cognitivist stance and
emotivism is self-refuting. However, anti-realism is successful in terms of Prescriptivism as it gets a balance
between recognising moral properties can’t be objective, and understanding why we often use/ talk of them
in such an objective way (eg. the law)
E ective at solving issues of
De ne realism (speci cally non-naturalism) cognitivism but ine ective in an
explanation for why moral
Defeating ET: Argument from queerness statements are meaningless
Provides a very unsubstantial
Intuitionism explanation. Knowing nothing
If there’s no rational element
to it, then what’s the point.
ET: Argument for relativity certain about the nature or
intuition is a problem.
This puts highly important
foundations to our society
ET: moral statements are meaningless not false under question like laws and
regulations.
Substantial
NC theory like EMOTIVISM resolves this
We often don’t have same factual
issue moral discussion becomes pointless information. In theory, yes, maybe
we would if we did, but that isn’t
Factual disagreements re ective of the real world. It
A.J. Ayers veri cation principle is self-refuting seems emotivism only has
explanatory power
in a perfect world? But
PRESCRIPTIVISM resolves issue: moral discussion we don’t live in a
Weak issue Moral nihilism We can’t follow a principle that doesn’t even pass perfect world and
its own conditions. Weak foundation for a theory therefore it’s useless.
Self-refuting Explains why we can formulate things such as
The only substantial issue directed towards prescriptivism is self- laws, we are prescribing commands, that people
refuting as choosing not to be moral is a moral decision. Therefore, can reject (e.g. before passing legislation). That
prescriptivism has the best explanatory power of the theories. then can be universalised.
fffl
fi ff fi fi
