Essay
Can moral anti realism be defended?
- Vak
- Instelling
debates criticisms and responses of anti realism
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 1 van de 2 pagina's
Voorbeeld 1 van de 2 pagina's
In winkelwagen
In winkelwagen
Verkoper
Volgen
mayasf
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Can moral anti-realism be defended? (25 marks)Anti-realism holds the view that there are no mind-independent moral properties/facts. Put simply,
it is the denial of realism. Anti-realist theories differ in whether they are cognitivist or non-
cognitivist, which determines if moral language is able to express beliefs and describe reality. When
applied to ethical language, this determines whether the ethical language we use such as ‘right’ and
‘wrong’ are even properties that exist. For example, according to anti-realists the statement ‘murder
is wrong’ refers to moral properties which do not exist. In this essay I will argue that moral anti-
realism is not successful because it contradicts a widely accepted belief of moral progress.
Emotivism holds the view that moral judgements are expressions of emotion. Ayer’s theory is anti-
realist and non-cognitivist, meaning moral statements are unable to describe reality and moral
truths don’t exist. We use moral language to express feelings of approval or disapproval rather than
to state moral facts. To say ‘murder is wrong’ is really to say ‘Boo! Murder!,’ not that murder has the
real property of wrongness. Ayer’s verificationism argues for non-cognitivism, and therefore
emotivism. Language is meaningful if and only if (iff) it is analytically (e.g. a triangle has 3 sides) or
empirically (e.g. water boils at 100C) verifiable. Moral judgements meet neither of these
requirements, therefore moral language is meaningless. Since all non-cognitivist theories are anti-
realist, emotivism is in this category too.
A criticism of anti realism, and most suited to emotivism, is whether it can adequately explain how
we use moral language. This means to ask if emotivism misunderstands what people aim to do when
they use moral language. When people use moral language, they intend to state the truth. In saying
‘murder is wrong’ I’m not aiming to say ‘boo murder’ but instead I believe that it is true. Emotivism
cannot account for this intention.
Ayer responds to this criticism by arguing that people are wrong about their use of moral language.
We really mean to express attitudes, not truths, as his VP states. Moral language is merely about our
own attitudes.
Ayer’s defence of emotivism consists of reiterating his supporting arguments, which would suggest
that this version of anti realism cannot be defended. Emotivism’s description of moral language is
much too narrow. Prescriptivism, however, is better able to explain how we use moral language.
Prescriptivism claims moral judgements express non-cognitive instructions that aim to guide
behaviour. According to prescriptivism, when someone says ‘murder is wrong’ they actually mean to
say ‘don’t murder.’ Giving an instruction does not equivalate to expressing a belief which may or
may not be true or false. This explains why prescriptivism is a non-cognitive theory. This description
of our use of moral language is less rigid than the one given by emotivism, hence why prescriptivism
is better able to defend anti realism. It is agreeable that when we make moral statements, we
prescribe our feelings on that certain act. This then expresses whether we think its morally good or
not.
A substantial criticism of prescriptivism would be that it leads to moral nihilism – the rejection of any
moral values. Both emotivism and prescriptivism want to hold onto the idea of moral values but
claims they are not mind independent. However, a nihilist would claim this is not possible. Nihilists
conclude that if there are no objective values then morality should be abandoned, since nothing is
morally wrong or right.
A prescriptivist could acknowledge that nihilism could be logically consistent with the theory so long
as the nihilist rejects all moral judgements. Hare believes that the risk of nihilism is small since
Dit zijn jouw voordelen als je samenvattingen koopt bij Stuvia:
Bewezen kwaliteit door reviews
Studenten hebben al meer dan 850.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet jij zeker dat je de beste keuze maakt!
In een paar klikken geregeld
Geen gedoe — betaal gewoon eenmalig met iDeal, Bancontact of creditcard en je bent klaar. Geen abonnement nodig.
Focus op de essentie
Studenten maken samenvattingen voor studenten. Dat betekent: actuele inhoud waar jij écht wat aan hebt. Geen overbodige details!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper mayasf. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor $5.98. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 65040 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 15 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen
Laatst bekeken door jou
Samenvatting ·
Biología celular veterinaria
Samenvatting ·
Nur 3145 EXAM 4 Pharm Study Guide.
Voordeelbundel ·
EPQ Complete Bundle - (49/50) - A*
Samenvatting ·
Insolventierecht samenvatting
Samenvatting ·
Economic principles ECOP101B
Samenvatting ·
Cálculo en varias variables.
Samenvatting ·
The Tempest Essays for IEB English
Arresten ·
Vragen responsiecollege IBK1
