general issues Flashcards
for emotivism and prescription
weakness
Can moral anti-realism account for how we use moral language?
We use moral language in a wide range of ways ie to reason to make decisions to command guide to disagree to persuade and influence.
Emotivism and prescript- narrow account of moral language
Emotivism- the only function of moral language is to express feelings
The prescriptivist- the only function of moral language is to guide action.
In doing that the emotivism is only hitting one of those reasons for moral language and prescriptivist
They don’t recognize the rich complex in which we use moral language.
Too simplistic trying to reduce our use of moral language to one thing in each case.
The moral realist can account for the ways we can account for moral language because they claim there are moral facts.
can’t account for moral progress
We cant account for moral progress in history, when we look back we tend to think we are more moral than our past beings. In order to make that claim there would need to be an objective standard of morality which to judge the progress that has been made. Otherwise, how would we come to that conclusion?
This is a problem for moral anti realist because they cant make us judge ourselves against something. There are no natural moral properties to judge it. Arguably there has been moral progress. We extended the moral circle to include everyone. We have laws in place for fairness and diversity. Moral code. Our societies improve and there has been genuine moral progress. A moral realist can say we have been improved by knowledge of facts when we was more ignorant of the facts we are more knowledgeable now.
This is an issue as moral anti-realism rejects them we can talk about a change in moral code but not moral progress. This is because there are no objective criteria to see if there has been an improvement to measure ourselves. We need something to measure the progress against. But if there aren’t anyhow do we know that progress has made progress. Only change no progress.
responses
Prescriptivism - might argue that it can improve its consistency in prescripts but didn’t realize they conflict but as time progress and we have developed knowledge and we realised they conflict and have consistently over time.
pres + emoti- Our knowledge of the facts has improved and that can account for (moral) progress. the new facts would be considered as moral judgement eg animals can feel pain
emotivism- our feelings have changed over time so that accounts for moral progress. we express more approval over our present moral code compared to our ancestral moral codes.
moral anti-realism leads to nihilism
nihilism- the rejection of morality and its values, the idea of morals have no foundation meaning there are no moral truths and facts.
as a result nihilism says to abandon our morals codes.
this leads to a position where anything is allowed
this makes moral anti realism unattractive
standard form
p1 there are no objective mind independent moral facts or properties (moral anti realism)
p2 if there are no objective moral facts then there is nothing that is morally wrong
conc if there is nothing that is morally wrong then we can do anything we like (moral nihsilim)
why is morally bad ?
Nothing exist in the world we created it so we still should be following it- anti moral realiusm
Nothing exists in the world we created it so why should be follow it, we should abandon it some would say marxism moral is a tool of opposition by the rich and powerful to control the masses,
Morality leads to a herd mentality of sheep for the sake of convention moral undermines our freedom
Morality doesn’t exist in the world is just a construct we should follow it- anti moral
the different theories that reject moral facts
moral anti realism- make some changing in our understanding but we can continue our moral behaviour and practice
moderate nihilism- our understanding of morality is flawed we must make radical changes in our understanding to continue with our moral practices
radical nihilism- abandon our moral practices and live free from them
why moral nihilism is better?
seems more consistent- no moral values - no reason or obligation to be moral
what does moral anti realism say?
moral anti-realist cant responds by saying we ought or should be moral since according to their own theory there is no objective moral should or ought therefore anti-realism fails and turns into moral nihilism.
response
emotivist and prescriptions can reject moral nihilism
emoti- acknowledge that nihilism isnt consistent someone might disapprove of nothingness and most people disapprove of something so premise 2 is false
presc- can work together as long as nihilism rejects all moral judgement and universalises none. hare thinks the risk of nihilism is small- we want to universalise our prescriptions and tell people what is wrong and right hence p2 is false.
