Realism/anti-realism in 'morality'

Question 1

Argument for anti-realist view on ‘morality’

Answer 1

I believe that in the domain of discourse of morality, an anti-realist approach is more plausible, and my argument is as follows:

1) If not every statement in the domain of discourse of morality is either true or false, then an anti-realist view is more plausible
2) Not every statement in the domain of discourse of morality is either true or false
3) Thus, an anti-realism view is more plausible

Question 2

Concepts

Answer 2

• The domain of morality will be considered as the entire body of statements that relate to the values and principles that may govern “right and wrong” with respect to how people behave.
• Realism is considered to involve a commitment to the two claims:
  1) Every statement in the discourse is either true or false
  2) Some statements in the discourse are true
• The two realist claims stem from the ideas of mind-independence (that the world exists independently of human minds) and knowability (that the human mind is able to grasp the world alright).
• An anti-realist, and specifically a Dummetian anti-realist would contest claim (1) on the grounds that not every statement in the domain of discourse is either true or false, or that not all statements in the domain may be proven.

Question 3

Defence of the factual strength of my argument

Answer 3

• It should be noted that my first premise is true via definitions of the first claim of realism, and Dummetian anti-realism, and therefore I will only need to argue the factual strength of my second premise.
• I believe that in terms of morality not all statements in this domain can be classified as necessarily true or false. Certain moral questions may be evaluated, but I would argue that the definitive answer to some moral statements are either conditional or do not exist entirely.
• Since the factual strength of the first condition of the realist view requires that every single claim in the domain of morality be either true or false, but that it is extremely rare that a moral question is answered to any degree of certainty, or is only considered true or false against a backdrop of social practices and reactions, I feel it much more probable that there exists at least one moral claim that cannot be categorized as true or false than the idea that all moral claims can be categorized as true or false.

Question 4

Counterargument

Answer 4

• A moral realist may argue that it is not sufficient to refute condition (1) on the basis that there is wide disagreement on many moral claims, as that does not necessarily refute the idea that there exists a definitive answer. Similarly, they may contend that conditional circumstances do not change the truth value of any moral concepts, and that every moral claim can be related to a fact about morality existing independent of personal opinions and/or social beliefs.
• I would contend that it is possible to construct a case (such as Sophie’s choice) in which a moral dilemma has two options with no favourable choice according to any moral principles, thus there would exist at least one claim in the domain which is neither true nor false and the first realist condition would remain factually false.