Metaethics- Moral Anti-Realism Flashcards
Moral Anti Realism def
-The view that there are no mind-independent moral properties of facts.
-Moral properties and facts EXIST, but are MIND-DEPENDENT.
Error Theory - Mackie
Combines Cognitivism + Anti-realism
= All moral claims are false, therefore an error.
ontological claim -> Moral judgements cannot be objective as moral properties do not exist outside of the mind.
semantic claim -> All moral statements are false. For example, ‘killing is wrong’ is false, as it is a claim about something that does not exist (‘wrongness’).
-It is an error based on our beliefs that moral props exist mind independently and objectively.
- Arises through how we’re brought up in society (ie ‘you must not do this’ ‘do this’ are social arrangements objectified into moral codes).
-Therefore, whenever we make a moral judgment we are making a false claim about the world.
=We talk as if there are objective moral truths, but Mackie thinks there are aren’t any. When we talk as if there are, it is an error, we are projecting out opinion onto reality and speaking as if it is an objective truth.
2 analogies to understand moral error theory
1) Loch Ness
= If we are an error theorist about the Loch Ness monster we are anti realists about the monster (we do not think it exists).
= We are also cognitivists -> If we say ‘Nessie lives in Loch Ness’, we are saying something FALSE, but are phrasing it as an objective truth.
2) Atheism
= Moral anti realist -> God does not exist (independent of my mind)
= Cognitivist -> All statements about God are false (to say ‘God loves me’ is a false statement, an error).
Emotivism - Ayer
Combines anti-realism + non-cognitivism
= Moral claims are not factual statements, but moral feelings of approval/disapproval.
‘stealing is good’ -> pro-attitude/ agree with stealing/ HURRAH!
‘stealing is bad’ -> con-attitude/ disagree with stealing/ BOO!
Therefore, Emotivism claims moral statements express emotional sentiments of approval/disapproval. = we are clearly motivated by our emotions.
(aka BOO!HURRAH! as if you say ‘lying is bad’ you are expressing emotions of BOO!LYING!BOO!, vice versa for hurrah)
Criticisms of Ayer’s Emotivism
1) Too subjective
= My view of what is right/wrong is totally subjected to me, it seems to reduce moral claims to preferences. In the sense, it is impossible to have meaningful disagreements, we cannot reason with one another regarding marlow views, they are all just preferences/opinions.
2) Statements like “it is rig it to pay taxes”
- we really resent it = not a HURRAH!TAXES!
- But we think it is right
Similarly, if we say “genocide is wrong” we are saying we disapprove of genocide or BOO!GENOCIDE! it hardly seems to captivate the seriousness of it.
Hare’s Prescriptivism
=Anti realist + non cog
= The claim that moral language is not truth-apt (non cog) but instead expresses prescriptions; commands that tell us what to do
3 parts:
1) RECOMMEND AND GUIDE ; moral judgements are prescriptive-> terms like ‘good’ are used to recommend and guide action.
2) UNIVERSALISABLE ; moral judgments contain prescriptions that are universalisable( we must be consistent to be moral).
- ie if i say “stealing is wrong” and then go steal smt this is inconsistent, therefore whenever we say smt is wrong , we are saying it is UNIVERSALLY WRONG , when applied to similar situations)
3) RATIONAL ; We can ask and answer questions about moral conduct, find facts that support our moral judgements, aim for consistency and highlight logical contradictions in others ( eg when someone argues something is bad and then argues that an identical thing is not bad).
2 kinds of prescriptivism (Hare)
1) imperatives -> These explicitly state what to do. In morality, statements like ‘eating meat is wrong’ entails ‘do not eat meat’.
2) value judgments -> The most general of these are ‘good’ + ‘bad’
- we use ‘good’ when we want to commend something to someone
- provides guidance for out choices
criticism of Hares prescriptivism?
Someone can hold a buoyant view and be praised as long as they were consistent.
EG -> fantastic things bored people are evil and should be killed and is consistent with this view -even to the point that if a family member went bald, they would kill them.
Peter Geach -> how non-cognitivism fails
Non- Cog -> For the emotivist p2 changes to ‘boo! tormenting cats , whereas For the prescriptivist p2 changes to “I do no recommend tormenting the cat”.
Non cognitivism fails because it turns clearly valid arguments into invalid ones.
EG…
P1 : if tormenting the cat is bad, getting your little brother to torment the cat is bad
P2: tormenting the cat is bad
C: getting your little brother to torment the cat is bad
Cognitivist -> this argument is valid as the phrase ‘‘tormenting the cat is bad’’ has a consistent meaning throughout.
This changes a valid argument into an invalid one, as it is incapable of having a consistent meaning.
Can moral anti-realists account for moral progress?
Moral progress: overtime, we have gotten better at understanding what ‘good’ is and acting in accordance with it.
-> ancestors; looked as if they had ‘moral blind spots’ (allowed slavery, human sacrifice etc)
-> now; laws in place for equality (abolition of slavery)
MORAL REALIST : can account for moral progress -> we have become better at discovering moral facts that exist mind-independently.
MORAL ANTI REALIST: cannot account for moral progress -> can only talk about’change’ not ‘moral progress’ as there are no mind-independent moral facts to assess whether our moral code has improved since our ancestors. (cannot make an objective comparison)
Nihilism and Moral nihilism def
Literally means ‘not anything’.
Nihilism:rejection of a set of beliefs.
Most extreme cases, a nihilist would claim life/existence is meaningless.
A moral nihilist -> rejects any moral claims and any attempt to talk about morality or act morally is meaningless.
How might moral anti-realism lead to moral nihilism?
Moral anti realism and nihilism both claim that there are no mind-independent moral properties.
However, nihilism is a radical form of scepticism which concludes there are no objective moral values so morality as a whole is without foundation/ we should abandon our ethical practices so do not have a duty to behave in a certain way.
Moral anti realism -> no moral facts ; We must make some changes in our understanding of what moral terms mean, but with these changes, we can continue with our moral behaviours and practices (Ayers and Hare)
Moderate moral nihilism-> No moral facts; our understanding of morality is deeply flawed. We must make radical changes in our understanding to continue our moral practices (Mackie)
Radical moral nihilism-> no moral facts; We should abandon our moral practices as they’re meaningless, and we should live a life free from moral codes (Sartre)
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.
C: If there is nothing that is morally wrong, then we can do anything we like (moral nihilism)
Advantages of Nihilism (over anti-realism)
If there is no possibility of any external moral guide = we chose our own . Sartre described any attempt to live as if there was, is ‘absurd’.
It is more consistent with moral anti-realism to be a nihilist.
How can the following avoid nihilism…
a) emotivism
b) prescriptivism
a) emotivism -> could claim that it is incoherent to say moral values are meaningless/nothing as we do really care about whether acts/ppl are moral or not.
b) prescriptivism -> moral claims are universal and it is impossible to universalize the view that there are no moral values, as that is a moral claim in itself.
Issue with non cognitivism anti realist theories ; cannot account for use of moral language (emotivism)
1) moral reasoning -> Partly; Moral judgements are expressions of emotions which are non-rational but do allow for rational disputes, only if about disagreements rather than facts.
2) commanding/guiding -> No; Only expressions of emotion, so they cannot command anyone.
3) persuading/influencing -> Yes; Psychological impact as others, expressions of approval/disapproval persuade us to behave in a certain way.
In the same way, I might try to convince someone else that myy favourite football team should be supported. I can persuade them. We care about others opinions, which often times times persuade us to act accordingly.
4) disagreement/agreement -> No; It is a matter of feeling so it’s just an opinion//-> cannot have moral disagreement, just one persons emotional response against another’s
