Thanks for this postâthis topic seems quite important to me, and I think this post has reduced my confusion and sharpened my thinking. I look forward to reading the later posts in the sequence.
However, not committing to any specific perspective calls into question whether there even is, in theory, a correct answer. If there are many different and roughly equally plausible interpretations of âimpartial perspectiveâ or âdesire fulfillmentâ (or more generally: of well-being defined as âthat which is good for a personâ), then the question, âWhich of these different accounts is correct?â may not have an answer.
I found this argument confusing. Wouldnât it be acceptable, and probably what weâd expect, for a metaethical view to not also provide answers on normative ethics or axiology? It seems that finding out there are âspeaker-independent moral facts, rules or valuesâ would be quite important, even if we donât yet know what those facts are. And it doesnât seem that not yet knowing those facts should be taken as strong evidence that those facts donât exist? Perhaps the different interpretations are equally plausible at the moment, but as we learn and debate more we will come to see some interpretations as more plausible?
Analogously, you and I could agree that there is an objectively correct and best answer to the question âWhat percentage of Americans are allergic to bees?â, despite not yet knowing what that answer is. And then we could look it up. Whereas if we believed there wasnât an objectively correct and best answer, we might decide our current feelings about that question are the best thing weâd get, and we might not bother looking it up. And it doesnât seem like we should take âwe donât yet know the percentageâ as strong evidence that there is no correct percentage.
Is there a reason that analogy doesnât hold in the case of moral realism vs anti-realism? Or am I misunderstanding the paragraph I quoted above?
(To be clear, Iâm not trying to imply that the case for moral anti-realism is as weak as the case for allergy-percentage anti-realism. Moral anti-realism seems quite plausible to me. Iâm just trying to understand the particular argument I quoted above.)
I found this argument confusing. Wouldnât it be acceptable, and probably what weâd expect, for a metaethical view to not also provide answers on normative ethics or axiology?
Iâm not saying metaethical views have to advance a particular normative-ethical theory. Iâm just saying that if a realist metaethical view doesnât do this, it becomes difficult to explain how proponents of this view could possibly know that there really is âa single correct theory.â
So for instance, looking at the arguments by Peter Railton, itâs not clear to me whether Railton even expects there to be a single correct moral theory. His arguments leave morality under-defined. âMoral realismâ is commonly associated with the view that thereâs a single correct moral theory. Railton has done little to establish this, so I think itâs questionable whether to call this view âmoral realism.â
Of course, âmoral realismâ is just a label. It matters much more that we have clarity about what weâre discussing, instead of which label we pick. If someone wants to use the term âmoral realismâ for moral views that are explicitly under-defined (i.e., views according to which many moral questions donât have an answer), thatâs fine. In that sense, I would be a ârealist.â
It seems that finding out there are âspeaker-independent moral facts, rules or valuesâ would be quite important, even if we donât yet know what those facts are.
One would think so, but as I said, it depends on what we mean exactly by âspeaker-independent moral facts.â On some interpretations, those facts may be forever unknowable. In that case, knowledge that those facts exist would be pointless in practice.
I write more about this in my 3rd post, so maybe the points will make more sense with the context there. But really the main point of this 1st post is that I make a proposal in favor of being cautious about the label âmoral realismâ because, in my view, some versions of it donât seem to have action-guiding implications for how to go about effective altruism.
(I mean, if I had started out convinced of moral relativism, then sure, âmoral realismâ in Peter Railtonâs sense would change my views in very action-guiding ways. But moral relativists are rare. I feel like one should draw the realism vs. anti-realism distinction in a place where it isnât obvious that one side is completely wrong. If we draw the distinction in such a way that Peter Railtonâs view qualifies as âmoral realism,â then it would be rather trivial that anti-realism was wrong. This would seem uncharitable to all the anti-realist philosophers who have done important work on normative ethics.)
Thanks for this postâthis topic seems quite important to me, and I think this post has reduced my confusion and sharpened my thinking. I look forward to reading the later posts in the sequence.
I found this argument confusing. Wouldnât it be acceptable, and probably what weâd expect, for a metaethical view to not also provide answers on normative ethics or axiology? It seems that finding out there are âspeaker-independent moral facts, rules or valuesâ would be quite important, even if we donât yet know what those facts are. And it doesnât seem that not yet knowing those facts should be taken as strong evidence that those facts donât exist? Perhaps the different interpretations are equally plausible at the moment, but as we learn and debate more we will come to see some interpretations as more plausible?
Analogously, you and I could agree that there is an objectively correct and best answer to the question âWhat percentage of Americans are allergic to bees?â, despite not yet knowing what that answer is. And then we could look it up. Whereas if we believed there wasnât an objectively correct and best answer, we might decide our current feelings about that question are the best thing weâd get, and we might not bother looking it up. And it doesnât seem like we should take âwe donât yet know the percentageâ as strong evidence that there is no correct percentage.
Is there a reason that analogy doesnât hold in the case of moral realism vs anti-realism? Or am I misunderstanding the paragraph I quoted above?
(To be clear, Iâm not trying to imply that the case for moral anti-realism is as weak as the case for allergy-percentage anti-realism. Moral anti-realism seems quite plausible to me. Iâm just trying to understand the particular argument I quoted above.)
Iâm not saying metaethical views have to advance a particular normative-ethical theory. Iâm just saying that if a realist metaethical view doesnât do this, it becomes difficult to explain how proponents of this view could possibly know that there really is âa single correct theory.â
So for instance, looking at the arguments by Peter Railton, itâs not clear to me whether Railton even expects there to be a single correct moral theory. His arguments leave morality under-defined. âMoral realismâ is commonly associated with the view that thereâs a single correct moral theory. Railton has done little to establish this, so I think itâs questionable whether to call this view âmoral realism.â
Of course, âmoral realismâ is just a label. It matters much more that we have clarity about what weâre discussing, instead of which label we pick. If someone wants to use the term âmoral realismâ for moral views that are explicitly under-defined (i.e., views according to which many moral questions donât have an answer), thatâs fine. In that sense, I would be a ârealist.â
One would think so, but as I said, it depends on what we mean exactly by âspeaker-independent moral facts.â On some interpretations, those facts may be forever unknowable. In that case, knowledge that those facts exist would be pointless in practice.
I write more about this in my 3rd post, so maybe the points will make more sense with the context there. But really the main point of this 1st post is that I make a proposal in favor of being cautious about the label âmoral realismâ because, in my view, some versions of it donât seem to have action-guiding implications for how to go about effective altruism.
(I mean, if I had started out convinced of moral relativism, then sure, âmoral realismâ in Peter Railtonâs sense would change my views in very action-guiding ways. But moral relativists are rare. I feel like one should draw the realism vs. anti-realism distinction in a place where it isnât obvious that one side is completely wrong. If we draw the distinction in such a way that Peter Railtonâs view qualifies as âmoral realism,â then it would be rather trivial that anti-realism was wrong. This would seem uncharitable to all the anti-realist philosophers who have done important work on normative ethics.)