moral anti realism Flashcards
what is the difference between cognitivism and non cognitivism
- cognitivism = claim that moral lang. expresses truth apt prepositions, aims to describe the world so can be true or false depending on how well it can describe it
- NC = opposite of C, instead expresses other, non-prepositional mental states such as emotion or a command
what is the difference between moral realism and anti realism
- moral realism = moral properties/truths/facts exist MID
- MAR = don’t exist MID so either MD or don’t exist at all
what objections to moral realism come under the anti realist error theory by Mackie
- queerness
- relativity
what objections to MR come under the anti realist emotivism theory by Ayer
-v,h
- verification principle
- humes fork
what objections to MR come under the anti realist prescriptivism theory by Hare
afm,iog
- argument from motivation
- is ought gap
what does Mackie’s error theory say about ethical language
C OR NC?
- cognitivist
- ML = cognitivist so can be true or false but moral properties = anti realism perspective
- so moral lang. aims to describe the world but fails
- so all moral lang. is false
- when we use moral lang. we make an error and project our opinion into reality as if it is an objective truth
- Mackie thinks his arguments from relativity and queerness demonstrate that moral properties do not exist MID
what would error theory claim about the statement “stealing is morally permissible”
- the person is trying to claim that stealing is objectively good
- the claim is false since a property of goodness in stealing does not exist MIDly
what is the conclusion if error theory is applied to statements about
- mythology
- religion
- mind
- those creatures don’t exist and all statements about them are false
- God doesn’t exist so all statements about God are false
- Mind doesn’t exist so all statements about it are false
what does Ayers emotivism claim about ethical lang
- C OR NC
- VP = moral lang. is meaningless —> not truth apt
- instead it expresses some other mental state
- emotivism = this mental state is one of the sentiments of approval or disapproval
- boo, hurrah theory
- NC
what would emotivism claim about the statement “stealing is morally permissible”
- expression of approval to stealing
- hurrah for stealing
emotivism means all moral views are either entirely subjective or trivial expressions of emotions. what does this mean
- reduces moral views to preferences
- so it is impossible to have meaningful disagreements
- does not properly account for what we mean when we use moral language
- when we say “genocide is bad” this is stronger than “boo to genocide” this is actually an objective claim
what does prescriptivism claim about moral language
- C OR NC
- non cognitivist
- ML = meaningless according to VP so is not truth apt so does not express prepositional statements
- instead expresses some mental state
- prescriptivism = a command not to do x
- commands = universal, how everyone should act
what would prescriptivism say about “stealing is morally permissible”
- “you should steal”
- claim that stealing is morally prescribed
how can the idea of universalising moral standards resolve the issue of subjectivity faced by prescriptivism?
- provides us with a way of criticising some moral views which is a problem for emotivism
- even if someone is inconsistent with their views/hypocritical we cannot say they’re correct/incorrect but can call them consistent/inconsistent
how can the idea of universalising moral standards be an issue for prescriptivism
- someone could hold abhorrent moral views and this would be fine provided they were consistent in their views
- would make them praiseworthy according to Hare
for error theory, if moral anti realists are correct, can we disagree about morality
- yes
- we can disagree about our claims but everyone will be wrong about them
for emotivism if moral anti-realists are correct can we disagree about morality
- no
- moral disagreements have no substance
- should be expressions of approval/disapproval
for prescriptivism, if moral anti-realists are correct, can we disagree about morality?
- partially
- we should try to be consistent with our moral commands so that we criticise others who are inconsistent
- however, two people with opposing but consistent views will have no way to meaningfully disagree
for error theory, if moral anti-realists are correct, can we persuade others about moral claims?
- yes
- we can persuade others that our claims are the true claims however we would all be wrong about such claims
for emotivism, if moral anti-realists are correct, can we persuade others about moral claims?
- yes
- persuasion is the only use of moral language as it appeals to our sentiments with expressions of approval/disapproval
- we are appealing to peoples emotions when we express our feelings through moral language in the hope that they may be persuaded to have the same sentiments
for prescriptivism, if moral anti-realists are correct, can we persuade others about moral claims?
- yes
- to say something is right to wrong is to provide a recommendation on how to act
- moral language aims to influence the behaviour of others and therefore persuades them
how does moral anti-realism lead to moral nihilism
what do each of the 3 theories think of it
- MAR = either moral truths are MD or do not exist
- since they do not exist (MIDly) then this leads to moral nihilism
- error theory accepts it
- the other two claim moral language still has meaning but not in a truth apt sense. since they cannot demonstrate any objective sense of morality, they seem to lead to moral nihilism
what is moral nihilism
- the rejection of meaningfulness (truth) of claims
- existential
- no moral truths and all moral lang. is meaningless
how might existentialism provide a way to defend anti-realism from the negative aspects of moral nihilism
- existentialism is a response to nihilism
- just because there are no moral truths does not mean we have no reason not to be moral
- so we should choose for ourselves the way we want to live our lives which leads to a positive outcome
what is moral progress?
have we made moral progress?
- overtime we are becoming morally better, does mean we have a perfect society, just that we are getting better
- yes and no
can moral anti realism account for the possibility of moral progress
- no
- since there are no moral truths, there is not one set of moral beliefs being more correct than another
- so if we don’t know which one is right then none of them are
- all we can say is that moral beliefs in society change
