Moral Anti-Realism by Nick Liske

Moral Anti-Realism
In discussing and analyzing the definition of moral anti-realism, it is important to understand that the meaning of the term is almost nonexistent. The main argument and purpose of moral anti-realism is that it is the absence of moral properties that exist independently in the mind. There are two ways of supporting this idea and they are moral noncognitivism and moral error theory. Moral noncognitivism argues that our moral judgments are not aiming at truth but rather the issues of wrongness exists mind dependently. The moral error theory believes that although our moral judgments are made for truth, they do not systematically protect it. The moral error theorist states that although we assert something, nothing, in fact, instantiates it and it is actually an untrue expression. Subjectivism is also included in supporting this theory, meaning it accepts moral fact and that it is constituted by our mental activity. Subjectivism, however, is sometimes used against this theory.
The idea of noncognitivism basically argues that if we make an assumption or statement about something than we associate it with certain wrongness. In doing so, we are then given certain questions in breaking down the wrongness, meaning we start asking questions about whatever idea or belief we hold in society that is morally wrong. Further more, it is essentially stating that there are no moral judgments that are true or false.
The error theory takes moral judgment as a matter of belief or as a linguistic phenomenon. This means that the theory believes that moral utterances are typically assertions that are systematically untrue.
Moral subjectivism is different in that tries to make sense of moral improvement, criticism, and disagreement.
Moral anti-realism faces an issue with factual belief considering that there are many who feel that the metaphors will combine and there can be no logical agreement on what moral anti-realism really means.

The idea of moral anti-realism ties into the philosophy class quite efficiently with the ideology in The Ethical Assassin. In the book, the two main characters frequently go back and forth questioning what is right or wrong because both of their moral judgments are questioned. Each of them believe that killing humans or animals either falls into one category of killing animals because they have rights or killing humans because they have hurt the lives of animals. Each of the characters breaks down the ideas within moral judgments. Did Melford make a good moral judgment killing Bastard and Karen? An analysis of the properties of that moral judgment must then be questioned.

Three Questions
1. Is it sensible to further analyze the definition of a moral judgment with the law system?
2. What are the illogical associations with moral anti-realism?
3. How are moral judgments false?

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License