Explain the distinction between moral realism and moral irrealism in normative ethics.

In normative ethics, the distinction between moral realism and moral irrealism revolves around the nature of moral claims and the existence of objective moral truths.

Moral realism posits that there are objective moral truths that exist independently of human beliefs, attitudes, or cultural practices. According to moral realists, moral statements can be objectively true or false, and moral properties are inherent in the world. In other words, moral facts exist in the same way that scientific or mathematical facts do. Moral realism suggests that there are moral principles or values that are universally valid and binding, regardless of individual opinions or cultural variations. For example, a moral realist might argue that it is objectively wrong to harm innocent individuals, regardless of personal or cultural beliefs.

On the other hand, moral irrealism rejects the existence of objective moral truths. It encompasses various positions, including moral subjectivism, moral relativism, and error theory. Moral subjectivism argues that moral judgments are expressions of individual attitudes or preferences, and there are no objective moral facts. According to this view, moral statements are merely expressions of personal opinions or emotions, and they cannot be objectively true or false. Moral relativism, on the other hand, suggests that moral judgments are relative to specific cultures, societies, or individuals, and there are no universal moral principles. This means that what is considered morally right or wrong can vary across different cultures or individuals. Lastly, error theory claims that moral judgments are systematically mistaken because they presuppose the existence of objective moral facts that do not actually exist. According to this view, moral language is fundamentally flawed and cannot accurately describe the world.

In summary, moral realism asserts the existence of objective moral truths that are independent of human beliefs, while moral irrealism denies the existence of such truths and argues for subjective or relative understandings of morality. The distinction between these two positions has significant implications for how we understand and evaluate moral claims in normative ethics.