Moral Realism (Moral Philosphy)

Question 1

Cognitivism vs Non-Cognitivism

Answer 1

• Cognitivism: Moral statements are truth apt
  (eg killing is wrong = true/false)
• Non-Cognitivism: Moral statements are not truth apt, but rather are opinions on what you should/shouldn’t do (prescriptive commands)
  (eg killing is wrong = you shouldn’t kill)

Question 2

Moral Naturalism vs Non-Naturalism

Answer 2

Naturalism: Moral properties (good) can be reduced to natural properties (pleasure)

• Can also be found through empirical methods (through the senses)

Non-Naturalism: moral properties (good) cannot be reduced to natural properties (pleasure)

• Known intuitively, we simply know goodness when we see it! (Moore’s intuitionism)
• Can’t be discovered through empirical methods (through the senses)

Question 3

Moore’s open question argument

Answer 3

Terms are either definable (bachelor) or undefinable(good)

• Based on whether double checking the def leads to an open or closed question

eg bachelor: is an unmarried man really a bachelor? - Yes (closed question)
Good: is maximising utility really good?: it depends (Open question)

Question 4

The naturalistic fallacy

Answer 4

Fallacy: A term that cannot be defined, any attempt to define the undefinable is fallacious

In terms of naturalism:

• Utilitarian’s (and other moral naturalists) attempt to define the good in natural terms
• Good is indefinable as it’s a simple idea. - you just know it when you see it. Contrasted with this is a complex idea, eg horse, which you can define.
• So, utilitarianism is guilty of the naturalistic fallacy

Question 5

Moore’s Intuitionism

Answer 5

The view that we can know moral properties such as “goodness” simply through self-évident intuitions.

We just know goodness when we see it or that killing is wrong

Question 6

Hume’s Fork

Answer 6

• Relations of ideas: Certain truths that cannot be rationally doubted without contradiction. True by definition. Known a priori (through reason)
  e.g. to doubt 2+2=4
• Matters of fact: Truths that can be conceivably doubted. True because of the way the world is. Known a posterior (through experience)
  e.g. boris johnson is the prime minister

Question 7

Hume’s Fork’s objection to moral realism(non-naturalism)

Answer 7

1. Are moral judgments relations of ideas? A: No, they are not certain and can be doubted without contradiction
2. Are moral judgments matters of fact? A: No, We cannot ‘see’ killing is wrong

C: Moral judgments are neither true or false so moral realism collapses

Question 8

Mackie’s Argument from Relativity

Answer 8

Aims to show morality is subjective not objective (not truth apt)

Shows this by showing how moral codes change between cultures/societies and people argue about them

This could be because of two reasons:

• There are objective truths about moral codes and some peoples view of them are wrong
• There are no objective truths about moral codes

Best explanation: No objective truths

Question 9

Utilitarianism as morally naturalist

Answer 9

All humans aim to maximise utility, which is reduced to pleasure and minimising pain, which is psychological, which is a natural property

Question 10

Moral realism Essay plan

Answer 10

P1. Intent (against) , Define moral realism (cognitivist)

P2. Moral Naturalism (Utilitarianism) + Strengths - clear guidance, avoids nihilism.
P2.2 Objection: Moore’s Open Question argument leading to the Naturalistic Fallacy (Utilitarianism eg)

P3. Moral Non-Naturalism (Moore’s Intuitionism), Still Moral Realism, Strengths - Clear guidance
P3.2 Objection: Humes fork

P4. Objection: Mackie’s Argument from relativity
P4.2 Objection: Mackie’s Argument from queerness

P5 Conclusion + Sustained intent

Question 11

Mackie’s Argument from Relativity

Answer 11

Shows how moral statements are subjective

P1. There are different moral codes from society to society.

P2. Accompanying these different codes, there are disagreements between societies.

P3. These disagreements may occur due to:

a. there’s an objective truth and one side has or wrong
b. there’s no objective truth about the matter

P4. Similarly with moral disagreements, they may occur because:

a. there are objective moral truths/values but one side is wrong
b. there are no objective moral truths

C. The best explanation is that there are no objective moral truths, so MR fails

Question 12

Mackie’s Argument from Queerness

Answer 12

Mostly argues against Non-Naturalism.

Argues that it is simply too strange for us to be able to find and ‘detect’ these moral truths.

For moore’s intuitionism, we would require a sort of 6th moral sense (which no one can point to or even name) to be able to identify things such as ‘goodness’.

An because of the absurdity of the sound of all of this, Mackie argues MR fails.