Philosophy Metaethics Questions Long
Moral realism and moral non-realism are two contrasting positions within the field of normative ethics that address the nature and status of moral claims. While both positions acknowledge the existence of moral judgments and values, they differ in their understanding of the objectivity and truth of these moral claims.
Moral realism, also known as moral objectivism, posits that moral claims are objective and independent of individual beliefs, opinions, or cultural norms. According to moral realists, moral truths exist in the world and can be discovered through reason or observation. These truths are considered to be universal and binding for all rational beings, regardless of personal preferences or cultural differences. Moral realism asserts that moral judgments can be objectively true or false, and that there are moral facts that exist independently of human subjectivity.
On the other hand, moral non-realism, also known as moral subjectivism or moral relativism, rejects the idea of objective moral truths. Non-realists argue that moral claims are not grounded in any external or universal reality, but rather are subjective and dependent on individual or cultural perspectives. According to this view, moral judgments are merely expressions of personal preferences, emotions, or social conventions. Non-realists contend that moral claims cannot be objectively true or false, as they lack a basis in an external moral reality.
One key distinction between moral realism and moral non-realism lies in their understanding of moral disagreement. Moral realists view moral disagreements as disagreements about objective moral truths, where one party is correct and the other is mistaken. They believe that moral progress is possible through rational discourse and the discovery of these objective truths. In contrast, moral non-realists see moral disagreements as fundamentally irreconcilable, as they stem from differing subjective perspectives or cultural values. Non-realists argue that moral progress involves fostering tolerance and understanding among diverse moral viewpoints, rather than seeking an objective resolution.
Another important difference between moral realism and moral non-realism is their implications for moral motivation and accountability. Moral realists argue that objective moral truths provide a strong foundation for moral motivation and accountability. They believe that individuals have moral obligations and that moral judgments carry a sense of moral duty. In contrast, moral non-realists contend that moral motivation is based on subjective desires, emotions, or social pressures. Non-realists argue that moral judgments are not binding in the same way as objective truths, and individuals are free to choose their own moral values and actions.
In summary, moral realism and moral non-realism present contrasting perspectives on the nature of moral claims in normative ethics. While moral realism asserts the existence of objective moral truths that are independent of individual beliefs, moral non-realism rejects the idea of objective moral facts and considers moral judgments to be subjective and dependent on personal or cultural perspectives. These positions have implications for moral disagreement, moral motivation, and moral accountability, shaping our understanding of ethics and how we navigate moral dilemmas.