Others have argued Moral Realism posits a kind of "moral fact" which is non-material and unobservable in the way as objective material facts are observable , and therefore not accessible to the scientific method. Plato and arguably Immanuel Kant and Karl Marx were moral realists, as well as more contemporary philosophers such as G. Moore and Ayn Rand - Donate with Crypto. Patterns of Culture. Mariner Books. Previous: What is Cultural Relativism? Next: Relativism and Subjectivism.
Share This Book Share on Twitter. There are several ways in which normative mistakes can come about. For example, an agent might be ignorant or misinformed about the relevant non-normative facts, she might not have given her judgement sufficient reflection and fail to see the full consequences of her existing commitments, or be incoherent in any other sort of way cf. Street b. That is to say, as a self-governed epistemic norm, Laura cares about being correctly informed by the facts that are relevant to her normative judgement: if her normative judgement at t1 rests on poor or false information, then at t2 she might retroactively realize that her judgement was mistaken by her own lights.
But once she becomes aware of this, she readily submits that she has reason not to order it. In other words, once at t2 Laura becomes aware that Z , she realizes that for her, X in combination with Z entails not Y. Since she judged herself to have reason to be informed about the relevant non-normative facts when she made her original judgement at t1, she now realizes that, by her own lights, her judgement at t1 was mistaken.
Second, even if Laura is aware of the relevant non-normative facts, she might still err in her normative judgement. But once she thinks harder about her judgement, she realizes that not Y , instead of Y , is what actually follows from her evaluative standpoint, when stripped from inconsistencies. In making her initial judgement, then, Laura was mistaken. Given the complexity involved in making normative judgements, and the myriad non-normative facts that might be relevant to a judgement, there are numerous ways in which an agent might err by her own lights cf.
Flanagan et al. Indeed, the Humean constructivist maintains that human agents make such mistakes all the time. Human beings are not ideally coherent; we rarely make normative judgements by weighing all the relevant options, reflecting on all the relevant norms, and gathering all the relevant non-normative facts.
Instead we apply shortcuts and rules of thumb, we make decisions under conditions of less than full information, and as a result we regularly make mistakes by the lights of our own evaluative standpoint. To see just how broad this range of potential normative mistakes is, consider mistakes that an agent could make due to failures of imagination. That is to say, the agent values being the sort of person who does not necessarily act upon one of the reasons that she is already familiar with.
Instead, she values to use her imagination to probe whether she might not act upon reasons which she has not heretofore considered. Take the case of Laura. But with hindsight, she blames herself for not considering the possibility that X might be taken as a reason to not Y — for, she is upfront to admit, she could have reasonably considered this, and since it followed from her evaluative standpoint that she had reason to be imaginative, she should have done so.
Thus, even if up until t2 Laura has not even contemplated the possibility that X might be taken as a reason to not Y , it might still be the case that she is mistaken to judge at t1 that X is a reason for her to Y , since it already followed from her evaluative standpoint at t1 that she had reason to be imaginative about the normative judgements that she could make, including the judgement that X is a reason to not Y.
If the judgement she would make under these conditions coincides with the judgement that she actually makes, then her actual judgement is correct. If being more coherent or informed would lead her to make a different judgement, then her actual judgement is mistaken. Given the many ways in which such mistakes can come about, the Humean constructivist submits that, at least among the human agents in our world, ideal coherence is likely to be a rare trait.
Start with the weakest sense of objectivity: intersubjective agreement. After all, all human beings share the vast majority of their evolutionary history; as a result, we have many biologically grounded needs and preferences in common cf. Street Cross-culturally endorsed norms typically have an adaptive rationale: their universality can often be explained as a consequence of the fact that they are the kinds of norms that tended to promote the survival and reproductive success of human ancestors.
Moreover, human agents also share several social practices and institutions, as well as a reservoir of factual knowledge — and increasingly so, in our globalizing world. As a result, there is a substantial overlap between the normative judgements that different agents endorse. Footnote However, normative judgements in the moral domain typically make a stronger claim to objectivity.
Can the constructivist procure the idea that moral judgements are strongly objective, in the sense of having this inescapable authority? Prima facie, this seems to be a difficult task. According to HC, the standards of correctness of moral judgements are standpoint-relative: their correctness depends on whether they withstand scrutiny from the standpoints of individual agents.
Therefore, it may appear that HC cannot procure the intuition that moral judgements can have normative force irrespective of what an agent wants. The constructivist maintains that there are objective standards that govern whether a normative judgement is correct or mistaken, irrespective of whether an agent thinks of her judgement as being correct or mistaken.
While there may be intersubjective agreement on the truth that ice-cream is tasty, agents will typically show little motivation to push for social convergence on this issue. As Gibbard , p. In effect I demand acceptance of what I am saying.
HC can accommodate this datum: it can procure the idea that at least in terms of appearance, objective moral judgements typically have practical clout. If an agent defends a moral truth that she regards as objective, she typically thinks that this truth should withstand scrutiny from the evaluative standpoints of other moral agents, irrespective of whether they think it does.
Hence, the agent is committed to achieving social convergence on this point cf. Mitchell-Yellin , p. Consider Louis, who is a preservationist. Louis judges that preserving the bluefin tuna as a biological species is valuable.
Moreover, he thinks that others have reason to value this as well: not only Laura, but no human agent has reason to order a dish that contains bluefin tuna, Louis maintains. In other words, he regards the judgement that human agents have reason not to order tuna as inescapable: it is binding on all human agents.
Other agents, such as Laura, may of course disagree: she does not think that this judgement withstands scrutiny from her own evaluative standpoint. But for Louis, whether Laura thinks that this judgement withstands scrutiny from her own standpoint is quite beside the point: what concerns him is whether it does. Crucially, on this account of objectivity, the truth or falsity of the moral judgement that X is not independent of the standpoint of moral agents.
Instead, the idea is that however these standpoints may differ, the truth of X will still follow from it. In other words, the truth of X invariably follows from different evaluative standpoints. This invariance is the distinctive feature of an antirealist account of objectivity, and sets it apart from its realist counterpart.
On the antirealist account, if a moral judgement purports to be objective, it purports to withstand scrutiny from a diverse set of evaluative standpoints. A fully objective moral judgement purports to be fully standpoint-invariant: no matter how the standpoint of a moral agent varies, the truth of X should follow from it.
But the constructivist can accommodate the finding, outlined in section 3 , that not all moral judgements aspire to make such a strong claim to objectivity. Instead, some moral judgements are held to be more objective than others, and their inescapability is a matter of degree.
The antirealist accounts for this datum by maintaining that the degree of objectivity of a moral judgement is a function of the diversity of evaluative standpoints under which its truth or falsity holds fixed.
The more diverse these standpoints are, the more objective the judgement. In this way, the antirealist makes room for a graded understanding of moral objectivity, which, we have seen, is precisely the sense of objectivity that a metaethical account should procure, as suggested by experimental findings. Lastly, note that on an antirealist account, although some moral judgements may aspire to be objective in a very strong sense, this aspiration is not unbounded.
Conceivably, there will be agents for whom the truth of X does not follow from their standpoint, even though many other agents regard X as a fully objective moral truth. The constructivist concedes that this is a genuine theoretical possibility — and in the most extreme of such cases, she will maintain, it is most sensible to conclude that fully coherent agents who endorse very bizarre normative judgements, should not be regarded as moral agents. One objection that has been raised against HC is that the view is too relativist.
But this seems to run counter to common-sense. As Bratman , p. HC, on the other hand, makes the truth of moral judgements escapable. Note two things about the relativity objection. First, the objection is fostered by observations about ordinary moral thinking: since our colloquial intuitions support the idea that eccentric creatures like Caligula are making a moral mistake, a plausible metaethical theory should procure this idea too.
Second, note that the supposed objectivist commitment of our ordinary thinking is quite strong. Naturally, the constructivist could maintain that other agents have reason to prevent Caligula from torturing other agents; after all, it might well follow from their evaluative standpoint that Caligula is making a moral mistake. But according to the relativity objection, this would not be enough. Allegedly, our ordinary thinking is not only committed to the idea that it would be right if people tried to stop Caligula, but also that Caligula is mistaken in his judgement.
Which resources does the constructivist have to dispel this objection? First, she might question whether our colloquial intuitions have any relevance for the plausibility of thought-experiments that involve ideally coherent creatures with eccentric moral preferences. This is not because ordinary discourse is irrelevant for metaethics — in section 2 I have provided several considerations for thinking otherwise — but because the thought-experiments involve creatures that are radically different from the agents that people are familiar with.
As a result, it is doubtful that our intuitions about such thought-experiments have epistemic value. Arguably, we should suspend our intuitions about what Caligula has most reason to do. If the constructivist takes this second route, the experimental research on folk objectivism should be taken into account. Specific scenarios involving ICEs have not yet been experimentally tested, but the extant research cited in section 3 provides some preliminary indication that the folk notion of moral objectivity is weaker than that of the realist.
The Caligula scenario may well be such a case: perhaps we genuinely disagree with Caligula about what he has moral reason to do, but do not think that Caligula is making a mistake in upholding his eccentric judgement. Moreover, we should be aware that comparisons with the historical Caligula are likely to be distorting where the thought-experiment is concerned.
After all, it is not at all obvious that the historical Caligula was ideally coherent. In fact, if the constructivist position is along the right lines, there is reason to think that the historical Caligula was probably not ideally coherent. While the historical Caligula did have a reputation of killing in a whim, there is no indication that he was highly imaginative, factually informed and very reflective.
Given the many coherence failures that human agents are liable to make, we may, therefore, hypothesize that when the historical Caligula judged that he had reason to torture others for fun, he was mistaken by his own lights.
Ideal coherence is a very strenuous condition. In section 4 we discussed some of the many failures that less-than-ideal human agents can make by the lights of their own evaluative standpoint. By stipulation, ICEs commit none of these mistakes. Hence, by stipulation our ideally coherent Caligula is fully aware of the fact that torture causes pain; he is fully aware that his judgement will lead others to condemn and penalize him; he is imaginative and able to think of many other things that he could do for fun.
In spite of all of this, he still judges that he has most reason to torture others for fun. We should be alert to the fact that this makes Caligula a very exotic kind of creature , who inhabits some possible world which may be quite distant from the world that humans inhabit. He may not share our evolutionary history, he may not be familiar with our sociocultural practices, and he may not share our factual knowledge — for if he did, it seems implausible to suppose that his queer judgement would withstand scrutiny from his own standpoint.
As Street , p. After all, their studies suggest that where aliens are concerned, ordinary respondents do not think that objective moral judgements retain their binding authority. Or, in terms of the constructivist position outlined in section 5 : on our ordinary thinking about morality, creatures like Caligula may not be regarded as moral agents.
To sum up, there are grounds for doubting that our colloquial notion of moral objectivity accords particularly well with the strong notion of the realist. However, these are still the early days of experimental research on folk moral objectivism, and we should be careful not to overstate the implications of this research.
What I hope to have achieved, at this stage of the dialectic, is at least to have cast reasonable doubt on the claim, traditionally upheld by many metaethicists, that realists have a leg up on antirealist theories in accounting for the objectivist features of ordinary discourse.
Another objection that has been pressed against HC concerns its purported inability to make sense of the idea that agents can criticize the normative judgements of other agents Berker Most people do not realize how much their emotions direct their moral choices. Emotions evoked by suffering, such as sympathy and empathy, often lead people to act ethically toward others.
Impartiality also called evenhandedness or fair-mindedness is a principle of justice holding that decisions should be based on objective criteria, rather than on the basis of bias, prejudice, or preferring the benefit to one person over another for improper reasons. Begin typing your search term above and press enter to search. Press ESC to cancel. Skip to content Home Essay What is the difference between moral objectivism and moral relativism?
Ben Davis May 11, What is the difference between moral objectivism and moral relativism? What is a consequence of objectivism? Is ethical objectivism true?
0コメント