Moral Philosophy Flashcards
Describe what is meant by maximising utility.
Any object has utility if it helps establish a specific goal. In this moral case, an action has utility if it generates more pleasure than pain.
Bentham’s theory regarding “two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure”.
Psychological hedonism:
- Humans driven to seek pleasure and avoid pain.
Classic utilitarianism:
- An action is good if it maximises general happiness.
Outline Bentham’s utility calculus.
The moral value of any act is calculated by considering its consequences.
- Add up total pleasure and pain caused by X. If pleasure is greater than pain, then action is good.
Example: Consider mugging (bad action).
Utility calculus includes: Intensity, duration, purity of pleasure etc.
Outline Mill’s distinction between higher and lower pleasures.
Mill’s view of utilitarianism.
- Qualitative hedonism. Two forms of pleasure:
- Higher = Pleasures of the mind
- Lower = Pleasures of the body/ physical
Higher are better as they last longer, though may not be as pleasurable in the short term.
- e.g Socrates dissatisfies > Fool satisfied.
“Competent judges” (appreciate both) can judge which are better.
Evaluate Mill’s distinction between higher and lower pleasures.
- Is it still hedonistic? Mill says something can be “better” even if it brings less pleasure. If something is less pleasant but “better” are we still seeking to maximise pleasure?
=> Counterpoint:
Mill may be claiming higher and lower pleasures are “incommensurable”. Just as the same amount of blue could never be the same amount of red. - Loses simplicity of original hedonism by including quality of pleasure. E.g how could a council decide if it is morally better to build a gym or a library. One library = ten gyms?
- It is a culturally elite view. Higher pleasure may just be the stuff Mill like to do. It is classist to dismiss the pleasures of the masses.
Outline Mill’s proof of utilitarianism.
P1 The only evidence that something is visible is that it can be seen.
P2 The only evidence that something is desirable, is that it’s desired.
P3 Each person desires their own happiness.
P4 Therefore, each person’s happiness is desirable.
P5 The general happiness is desirable.
P6 Each person’s happiness is good to that person.
P6 The general happiness is good for the aggregate of people.
P7 Happiness is the only good.
- This is because people desire other things as “ends in themselves”, not as a path to happiness, because they are a part of what constitutes happiness for that person. But this only comes about though society and culture, and so happiness is truly the ultimate end.
Evaluate Mill’s proof of utilitarianism.
- Fallacy of equivocation. Desirability has two meanings.
- Factual sense, that which is able to be desired.
- Moral sense, that which ought to be desired.
Not everything we desire in sense one, we do in sense two e.g slavery. Mill uses “desired” in sense one to suggest it is morally “desirable” in sense two. He has used a term with more than one meaning misleadingly. - Fallacy of the composition. Just because everyone wants their own happiness, does not mean that each of us wants general happiness. Each person may want to win the lottery, but not everyone wants to win it THIS week.
Outline preference utilitarianism.
Non-hedonistic utilitarianism.
- Maximise a utility other than happiness. For example, preferences. So a good act is one which maximises the satisfaction of the preferences of all those involved. Conclusions are often the same as AU but are reached via different reasoning.
Example: Turn of life support or not?
The theory is good because classical AU often leads to counter-intuitive decisions e.g colosseums. Whereas PU would mostly side with those suffering. Plus, there’s the advantage of actually asking what people want - we can’t ask people to quantify the possible pleasure generated in AU.
Evaluate preference utilitarianism.
- Bad preferences. PU works of an “ideal viewpoint” that everyone makes decisions in a “good” manner and with all relevant knowledge.
- Example: Psychotic David. - Weighing up preferences. PU has no calculus “sort of thing” to help quantify.
Outline and evaluate the difference between act and rule utilitarianism.
With AU long term consequences can never be known. It takes to long to calculate and it leads to counter intuitive decisions.
Rule utilitarianism has some rules to follow (Mill’s secondary principles) such as “don’t kill”. Something is good if it follows a suitable rule and a rule is a good one if it increases general happiness.
Counterpoint:
- Collapses into AU. Most basic rules are too general and have legitimate exceptions e.g lying. Smart states, it would just become AU with very specific rules.
Outline and evaluate the claim that pleasure is the only good.
It’s a simplistic view to follow, but unpleasant to some e.g religious people. But Bentham points out they may still be driven by pleasure e.g next life, heaven, God’s grace etc.
Nozick’s pleasure machine. Ultimate pleasure in life, but a simulation you can never come out of. If you don’t want to go in, psychological hedonism is wrong.
- Mostly we refuses the machine as it is real experience we seek, not the mental sensation of pleasure.
- Also, it is not pleasure we seek but actual things. If I offer you an equal amount of pleasure or the hello kitty stickers you want, you may still go for the stickers.
Outline and evaluate whether utilitarianism is consistent with fairness and individual liberty/ rights.
AU often leads to morally counter-intuitive judgements.
- Example: Kidnapped boy kept as slave. AU says this could be a morally good thing.
But critics often agree values such as “liberty, honour and justice” are morally primitive, have value as ends in themselves. These are worth pursuing independently of whether they maximise happiness.
Mill: Tyranny of the majority
- Democracy supposed to be “will of the people”, but really is the will of the majority. Majority can oppress minority. Government should only step in to prevent us hurting others (harm principle). Liberty should be considered an end in itself.
Outline three main problems with utilitarianism around calculating happiness/ pain.
Problems:
1. Average or total happiness?
- Loads of not so happy people or a few very happy people.
2. Distribution of happiness?
- Better to make one person “50 points” happier or five people “10 points” happier.
3. Do consequences end?
- Saving boy from drowning is good, but what if he becomes a dictator later in life.
Outline and evaluate the problem with utilitarianism around calculating happiness/ pain in regards to animals.
Extra: Whose happiness? Human or animal?
- Singer
P1 If only humans have moral status, there must be some quality we share.
P2 All human-specific qualities that could apply, some humans will lack.
P3 The only possible candidate is a quality animals have to.
C Not only humans deserve moral status.
Counterpoint:
- If the only basis for moral status is sentience, then we should have no problem eating dead humans…but we do. Cora diamond.
Outline and evaluate whether utilitarianism leads issues around partiality.
Bentham was serious on everyone being equal, especially made it clear men and women should be treated the same.
But should we treat everyone the same, strangers and loved ones:
- Burning house scenario. Act says save the scientist but most disagree.
However, both rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism can get past this. Follow moral obligations to family and friends is important for society.
Outline and evaluate whether utilitarianism ignores both the moral integrity and the intentions of the individual.
Bernard Williams argues that the ethical system requires we do things that undermine our moral integrity e.g Jim and the warlord.
P1 Personal integrity requires there are things (X) that you don’t do.
P2 Using a utilitarian framework, a situation can be created whereby doing (X) is the right thing.
C Therefore, utilitarianism undermines our personal integrity.
Also, it ignores the intentions of an action and only focuses on the outcome.
- Example: Simra, Maisie and caring for their Gran.
Apply utilitarianism to the issue of stealing.
Depends on ac or rule. Act says it is ok, only if the pleasure created is greater than the pain - though this is rare.
Rule utilitarianism may say “don’t steal” because this rule increases societal happiness and so is a good one to follow.
Apply utilitarianism to the issue of eating animals.
Singer states that animals have moral status, just as humans do - but he is a preference utilitarian. Is the preference to stay alive as strong for animals as it is for humans? But we can tell they feel pain. So most of the time modern farming makes eating meat a bad thing. But kind farming techniques could allow for eating meat to be morally good.
Apply utilitarianism to the issue of simulated killing.
It is likely to not be morally bad. The person partaking is not harming anyone in real life and is gaining pleasure from the experience.
However, if it causes them to be violent in real life (unlikely) then it is a morally bad thing to partake in.
Apply utilitarianism to the issue of lies.
Differs between act, rule and preference:
- Act = depends on situation.
- Rule = the rule to not lie is good as it boosts general happiness so we should not lie.
- Preference = the want to not be lied to is very strong so we should not lie.
What is meant by good will?
The only that is good without qualification and it is a will that acts for the right reason. It acts out of duty, not of desire for anything else.
For Kant this means acting in accordance with moral law as determined by the categorical imperative.
Explain the differences between acting in accordance with duty and acting out of duty.
You can do the right thing and act in accordance with moral duty, but not out of duty.
Shopkeeper 1:
- Does not rip of customers because he wants to be liked. It’s a good thing but, he is not acting out of duty.
So he acts in accordance, but not out of duty.
Explain the difference between hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives.
Hypothetical imperatives:
- Non-moral imperative and not all people will follow it as they are based on desires no everyone has. “If you want…you should…”.
Categorical imperatives:
- A moral law (like scientific laws) should be universal and apply to everyone. Central to morality and are absolute.
Outline and apply the universal law formulation of the categorical imperative.
Universal law formulation/ The first formulation of the categorical imperative.
- Identify the underlying maxim.
- Can you conceive of a world where this maxim is law. If not, it’s a contradiction in conception.
- Can you rationally will this to be a moral law. If not, it’s a contradiction in will.
Explain the difference between perfect and imperfect duties.
Failure at step 2 produces a perfect duty. Always something we are obliged to follow, breaking it is wrong.
- False promises = a perfect duty (to avoid).
Failure at step 3 produces an imperfect duty. Breaking it is not always wrong.
- Helping others = an imperfect duty.
Outline and apply the humanity formulation of the categorical imperative.
Kant believed the ability to create and follow your own rules is what gives humans both reason and autonomy.
Kant believed his humanity formulation had the same meaning as the universal law formulation. It states that it is always wrong to treat someone as a means to an end if they have not been able to consent as this undermines there autonomy as humans should be regarded as ends in themselves.
- Though you can use them as a means to an end if they consent e.g taxi driver.
Outline and evaluate the claim that some duties can clash/ compete.
Clashing of perfect and imperfect duties is not to bad as we always have to follow perfect, but not imperfect.
- e.g Axe-man scenario. Perfect duty not to lie, but imperfect duty to care for others.
However, it becomes more tricky if there are clashing imperfect duties. Kant believes this cannot occur as we can examine our reasons and see which choice is stronger. But this is very complex and hard to do quickly.
Outline and evaluate the claim that not all non-universalizable maxims are immoral and visa versa.
“When taking an exam, I will try to come in the top half” cannot be universalised, because everyone cannot come in the top half. So we then have a perfect duty not to come in the top half?
But we can universalise “When taking an exam, I will push myself and try and get over half marks”. Because it doesn’t fix the outcome in relation to other people in a way which cannot be universalised. Maybe we are just not meant to compare ourselves to others.
“I will chew food 32 times before eating, to aid digestion”. Is not moral, but can be universalised. But maxims are morally permissible, we have no duty to follow them. We only have a duty not to do things - so not a positive account of ethics.
Evaluate Kant’s theory in the light of the counter-claims that the consequences determine moral value.
Kant states the moral worth of an action depends entirely upon the motive/ intent. This is bad just as U places all the moral worth on the outcome.
In the case of the axeman, Kant seems more concerned with the consistency of our actions rather than with a friend being killed.
Outline and evaluate the claim that Kant’s theory does not take into account the value of certain motives such as love, friendship and kindness.
Parent A enjoys reading to their daughter and spending time with them out of love. Parent B does not enjoy reading to their daughter and spends time with her purely out of a sense of duty.
- According to Kant, the seemingly cold and uncaring parent B is acting morally while parent A is not.
Same can be applied to two friends visiting a sick third friend in hospital. Also, to two people helping an old lady across the street etc.
Outline and evaluate Philippa Foot’s criticism of Kant that morality is a system of hypothetical, not categorical, imperatives.
Philippa Foot
Moral systems cannot ignore desires. Moral law as Kant conceives it does not provide us with desires. Hypothetical imperatives do:
- “If you want to win the match, you should practice” provides us with motivation. Categorical imperatives by their very nature are stripped of stripped of desire so there is no motivation to follow them except the ones Kant gives which Foot rejects.
- “To be rationally consistent”, breaking it results in conviction of villainy, not inconsistency.
- “We are bound by moral law”, even metaphorically we are not. “Binding” idea of moral law is illusory.
- “Out of respect for the moral law”, but we don’t have to do that any more than follow etiquette in conversation.
Apply Kantian ethics to the issue of stealing.
Never steal
- Universal law formulation = Contraction in conception. Perfect duty not to steal.
- Humanity formulation = By taking without asking you are undermining the owners autonomy. Perfect duty not to steal.
Apply Kantian ethics to the issue of eating animals.
We have a duty to perfect our own moral nature, which involves the imperfect duty of sympathising with the suffering of creatures.
So because creatures don’t posses autonomy and reason, moral laws don’t apply to them. So we can use them as a means to an end, but this does not mean we have license to act cruelly to them.
Apply Kantian ethics to the issue of simulated killing.
It may make us less inclined to treat others with compassion. While it passes both formulations and so is morally permissible, it is necessarily in harmony with the humanity formulation. It’s morally unclear exactly what stance Kantian ethics takes to this issue.
Apply Kantian ethics to the issue of telling lies.
Never tell lies
Universal law formulation:
- “Lie to gain advantage” leads to a contradiction in conception, you would be willing a world with no lies (everything is deception) but relying on the existence of lies.
Explain what Aristotle means by “The Good”, Eudaimonia and their relationship with pleasure.
The final end, for which everything is done. A state of well being that, according to Aristotle’s virtue ethics, is the “goal” or “the ultimate good” we are aiming at.
The good life is not pleasure, but does involve it. As such, it lies between Hedonism and Asceticism.
Outline Aristotle’s function argument.
Part 1:
- Every part of the human body has a distinctive function, so surely humans must have a distinctive function. It cannot be anything that is shared with animals or plants, so reason must be our function.
Part 2:
- Something is good if it fulfils its function well and it does this if it has the right qualities (virtues). A good human is someone with the “right qualities and lives guided by reason” (X). The good life of a human (eudaimonia) is the life of a good human and can only be reached by someone with X.
So the relationship between virtues and function is???
Explain and illustrate virtue as a character trait or disposition.
We have habitual ways of behaving and this forms our character. When reason guides our emotions we develop positive characteristics, virtues (arete) which help us reach eudaimonia.
When we don’t use reason, we develop vices.
Explain the role of education/ habituation in the development of moral character.
Virtue is developed over time, it is not innate. We learn them as a child and then develop them as an adult through commitment and habituation. But they are more than habit as they require reasoning.
It’s like a skill, such as learning to play the harp. We start by copying others, practicing until it becomes “habit” and then learning to apply the skill in different ways (contexts for virtues).
Explain the importance of feelings in Aristotle’s virtue ethics.
All of our actions display some form of emotion. Virtue means expressing the right/ appropriate amount of emotion. A virtuous person has no inner emotional conflict.
Evaluate the doctrine of the mean and explain how it applies to particular virtues.
Virtue lies between “too much” and “too little”. To much courage is carless, to little is cowardice. Reason helps us work out how much of a trait we display in each situation.
Counterpoint:
- These virtues are grouped too neatly. These quantities are not always on a single scale of character.
Outline and explain the difference between voluntary, involuntary and non-voluntary actions.
Voluntary action = An intended action.
- We are morally responsible for these actions as we freely chose.
Involuntary action = An action that is contrary to our intention.
- Out of ignorance > NV
- Out of compulsion > Forced to act
Non-voluntary = Unintended action due to ignorance.
- We are not morally responsible if afterwards we feel regret. We are still responsible for action, but can be forgiven.
Outline and explain the relationship between virtues, actions and reasons. Furthermore, what is phronesis/ practical wisdom.
We first have a wish to act which we deliberate on using practical wisdom/ reasoning. If we decide it is a virtuous act, we make the choice to perform it. Repeating this action results in habituation of virtuous behaviour. This leads to virtuous character.
Practical wisdom/ reason/ phronesis refers to the mental virtue gained from using skills of reasoning to determine what is the right action in each situation.
Outline the arguments against virtue ethics that it provides no clear guidance when acting and how it’s definition of a good person is circular.
Mill and Kant provide rules on how to act, Aristotle does not. Many argue it’s a difficult system to follow.
=> Counterpoint: The theory is meant to develop character and provides both a list of virtues and practical wisdom skills to develop.
=> Counterpoint: Virtues and opinions on morality in general appear to be culturally and historical dependant.
A virtuous act is one performed by a virtuous person, and a virtuous person is someone who performs virtuous acts = CIRCULAR!!!
=> Counterpoint:
- A virtuous person is also someone who has excellence of character and virtuous acts lie in the “mean”. Other elements help the system avoid circularity.
Outline the issue of clashing/ competing virtues and whether a trait must contribute to eudaimonia to be a virute in regard to virtue ethics.
Someone who you love is suffering a painful terminal illness. The virtue of charity motivates you to help them toward euthanasia, but justice forbids you from killing them.
=> Counterpoint: The clash is only superficial, true application of phronesis makes it clear how one should act.
Aristotle says all virtues contribute to eudaimonia. But Hume makes no mention of eudaimonia, but discusses how virtues arise from our sympathy for others. A trait does not need to contribute to eudaimonia to be a virtue according to Hume.
Outline how virtue ethics may have an issue with the individual and the moral good.
Ethics often draws the distinction between actions that are self-interested (individually good) and that benefit others as well (morally good). But Aristotle’s theory seems primarily self interested?
=> Counterpoint:
- Yes the virtues are something that we must develop ourselves and are self-interested, but they benefit those around us as they improves how we treat people. Aristotle’s theory shows how individual good can benefit the moral good.
Apply virtue ethics to the issue of stealing.
Consider the mean. Stealing is never in the mean and so it is a bad action.
Apply virtue ethics to the issue of simulated killing.
It can be used for the safe cleaning of negative emotions without harming anyone. By watching killings on stage we can practice feeling the rights emotion at the right time which helps develop virtue - Aristotle.
However, a modern virtue ethicist says playing video games and killing in them is bad as building a virtuous character requires careful cultivation and habitual callous behaviour takes us away from virtue.
Apply virtue ethics to the issue of eating animals.
There is a hierarchy and humans are at the top. So it is fine to eat animals as this does not take away from a virtuous character - Aristotle.
However, a modern virtue ethicist says it is immoral to eat factory farmed animals to due the suffering they face. By eating them, you are taking part in that system of cruelty by fuelling it.
Apply virtue ethics to the issue of telling lies.
For Aristotle telling lies refers to honesty as a virtue, whether or not you are being honest about yourself - for this the mean obviously changes at times. But when discussing the specific morality of lying, he condemns it as “bad and reprehensible”.
However, for a modern virtue ethicist, lying is sometimes acceptable as honesty and dishonesty are both habits. Mostly truthfulness is better, but sometimes lying is morally good.
- e.g Axe-murderer (Kantian ethics) asking to borrow your axe.
Outline how moral principles might have their origins in reason, emotion or society.
Reason:
- In nature it is easier to survive in harmonious groups, which requires rules regarding behaviour.
Emotions:
- Morality comes out of our feelings for others, so sympathy and empathy.
Society:
- Society’s all develop different moral codes throughout history. Morality is a construct of social ideologies.
Explain the distinction between moral realism and anti-realism.
Moral realism:
- Moral properties/ facts are natural properties of the world.
Moral anti-realism:
- There are no moral properties/ facts that exists independently of the human mind.
Explain the distinction between cognitivism and non-cognitivism about ethical language.
Cognitivists:
- Moral statements are propositions that can be true or false.
Non-cognitivists:
- Moral statements are not propositions and can neither be true or false.
Outline and explain how utilitarianism and virtue ethics are forms of moral naturalism.
Moral naturalism = Cognitivist view of language, they believe ethical statements are true or false because they refer to moral properties that can be reduced to natural properties.
Utilitarianism: “Good” can be reduced to pleasure and “bad” to pain. Moral properties can be reduced to natural properties - Mill.
Virtue ethics: “The Good” is what we value most and we can empirically prove this by showing that we strive for eudaimonia.
Explain how intuitionism is a type of non-naturalism.
Moral non-naturalism: There are moral properties/ facts inn the world, but they are not natural properties.
Moore: Via a faculty of rational intuition, we can reflect on situations and grasp moral truths as self-evident. Moral properties are not natural, we just intuit them.
Explain the issues Moore puts forwards against naturalism:
- The open question argument
- The naturalistic fallacy
Open question argument:
- The the double check of a definition leads to an closed question, then it is a genuine definition. If it leads to an open question it is not. e.g A bachelor is an un-married man (X) => Is X really the case? (closed). For “Good is maximising utility” the question is open so it is impossible to define good.
The naturalistic fallacy:
- A term that is indefinable cannot be defined and any attempt to do so is based on mistaken belief.
- Good is indefinable, Utilitarians attempt to define good in naturalistic terms. So Utilitarianism is guilty of the naturalistic fallacy.
Explain an argument against moral realist theories:
- Hume’s fork and Ayer’s verification principle.
Hume’s fork:
- Is it a relation of ideas (a priori/ analytical) or a matter of fact (a posteriori/ synthetic).
- Are moral judgements relations of ideas, no as they can be denied without contradiction. Are they matters of fact, no as we cannot “see” that killing is wrong.
- So moral judgements are neither true nor false.
Ayer’s verification principle:
- Focussed on meaning not knowledge. Something is meaningful if it is true by definition, or verifiable through experience. Moral statements meet neither.
=> Counterpoint:
- Using its own logic the principle is not meaningful…
Explain an argument against moral realist theories:
- Hume’s argument that moral judgements cannot be beliefs.
Moral judgements motivate us to act, but beliefs and reason can never motivate us on their own. There is something else that motivates us. Therefore, moral judgements can’t be beliefs.
If Hume is right, moral judgements have their source inside us e.g emotions. So, moral judgements do not represent something independent to us. Moral realism is false.
Explain an argument against moral cognitivist theories:
- Hume’s “is-ought” gap.
Judgements of reason (what is the case) VS judgements of value (what ought to be). They are entirely different, and so you cannot draw a conclusion about value (ought) based on premises about reason (is). Hume’s law.
Cognitivists calim that moral judgements are true/ false. If correct, we should be able to infer a moral judgement from a descriptive statement. But this is not possible. Moral judgements not true or false, cognitivism cannot be true.
=> But you can (Searle), “You promised to pay me back” (is) “So you ought to” (ought), perfectly logical.
Explain an argument against moral realist theories:
- Mackie’s arguments from relativity and queerness.
Relativity:
- There are differences in moral codes between societies. Moral disagreements occur either because there is objective truth regarding morality and peoples perceptions are distorted OR there are no objective moral values. The best explanation is the second.
=> Counterpoint:
- There seem to be some e.g “don’t kill”. Others would disagree.
Queerness:
- Metaphysical: Moral realists believe in the existence of strange properties in the world and that they somehow motivate our actions.
- Epistemological: Moral realists must be committed to believing in some mysterious faculty that enables us to detect these peculiar moral properties, but none can explain it simply. So the simplest explanation is…
Explain Mackie’s error theory and outline why it is a cognitivist theory.
Ontological claim:
- Something is only objective if it’s either true or false, about the world “out there”, it describes something independent of the human mind. Moral judgements do not fit any of these.
Semantic claim;
- But all our ethical statements make some claim to objectivity. This is an error. The error is not linguistic but due to our belief that there are objective, independent moral properties. These arise due to society.
The theory is cognitivist as non-cognitivism says that moral statements are neither true nor false. Mackie is saying, since there are no independent moral properties all moral statements are false. As such, the theory cannot be non-cognitivist and must be cognitivist.
Explain what emotivism claims about the status of moral judgements.
Ayer’s emotivism = Non-cognitivist, moral statements are neither true nor false.
VP: Statements are only true analytically or synthetically. Moral statements are true via either of these.
Instead, moral statements are merely expressions of emotions like saying “boo” at something we don’t like.
Explain what prescriptivism claims about the status of moral judgements.
Hare, moral judgements are not factual, they do not refer to anything “out there” - they cannot be derived from factual premises.
But moral judgements guide our actions as “right” or “wrong” are prescriptive terms which tell us what to do.
Prescriptivism is similar to emotivism but instead of expressing mere emotion we are also expressing opinion to others that they follow our decision. We are trying to universalise our opinion.
Counterpoint:
- What is there are fanatics who universalise ridiculous prescriptions. Hare’s response that these people are very rare is weak.
Explain an argument against moral anti-realist theories:
- Can moral anti-realism account for how we use moral language?
For moral philosophy to remain relevant, it must stay tethered to the real world and and account for the way in which judgements are used during the everyday life.
We use moral language everyday and a moral realist can account for why, they draw on moral facts, but anti-realists struggle to.
For example, emotivism can only account for persuading, not for much else.
Explain an argument against moral anti-realist theories:
- Can moral anti-realism account for moral progress?
Moral values have changed over time and between societies. e.g Slaves once acceptable, but no more. Ancestors held narrow view of who had moral worth, but we have now progressed.
Realism easily solves this, but so does anti-realism. Since it assumes there are no objective moral facts, there can’t be an objective way to measure change. As such, the change in views is explained by moral views becoming more logically consistent with each other over time.
Explain an argument against moral anti-realist theories:
- Does moral anti-realism become nihilism?
Nihilism = The complete rejection of a particular set of beliefs, moral nihilism is then the rejection of morality and its values.
If anti-realism is right, then actions cannot be inherently right or wrong. Surely this would lead to MN?
Counterpoint:
- Emotivists get around this theory and have no problem with MN. Because “moral wrongness” is in fact just how we feel regarding a topic, and since many people share opinions, there are things that are “wrong” to do - but not because moral properties exist “out there”.
