Moral Anti-Realism - Debunked

 In short, Moral Anti-Realism is the denial that moral properties (like "goodness" or "wrongness") exist objectively and independently of human minds, in the same way that physical properties (like mass or shape) do.

The entry classifies Anti-Realism into three distinct "flavors" and highlights the major arguments used to support them.

1. The Three Main Varieties

The entry distinguishes Anti-Realists based on why they reject objective moral facts:

• Non-Cognitivism (Expressivism):

  • The Claim: Moral statements are not attempts to describe the world. They are expressions of emotion or commands.

  • Example: Saying "Stealing is wrong" is not a fact; it is essentially shouting "Boo on stealing!" or "Don't steal!" Since they aren't facts, they cannot be true or false.

• Error Theory (Moral Nihilism):

  • The Claim: Moral statements do try to describe the world, but they always fail because moral properties don't exist.

  • Example: It is similar to atheism regarding mythology. "Zeus is angry" is a false statement because Zeus doesn't exist. Similarly, "Murder is wrong" is a false statement because "wrongness" doesn't exist.

• Non-Objectivism (Mind-Dependence):

  • The Claim: Moral facts exist, but they are entirely dependent on human opinion.

  • Example: "Eating beef is wrong" is true, but only because a specific culture believes it. This view often overlaps with Moral Relativism.

2. The Key Arguments for Anti-Realism

The entry details the famous arguments philosophers use to attack the idea of objective morality:

• The Argument from Queerness (J.L. Mackie): If objective moral values existed, they would be "queer" (strange) entities—utterly different from anything else in the universe. They would be invisible, non-physical properties that somehow compel us to act. Since this doesn't fit with a scientific worldview (physics, biology), we should reject them.

• The Argument from Disagreement: Scientific disputes (e.g., the age of the earth) tend to resolve as we gather more evidence. Moral disputes (e.g., abortion, capital punishment) often remain unresolved even among fully informed, rational people. This suggests there is no objective "fact" to be discovered, only a clash of preferences.

• Explanatory Impotence (Gilbert Harman): We don't need moral facts to explain the world. If you see a crime and say "That is wrong," we can explain your reaction fully using psychology and sociology. We don't need to assume "wrongness" actually exists in the universe to explain why you said it.

3. A Modern Twist: "Quasi-Realism"

The entry also discusses Quasi-Realism (associated with Simon Blackburn), a sophisticated view that tries to have it both ways.

• It is a form of Non-Cognitivism that argues we can "earn the right" to use realist language.

• Even though morality is just emotion, we are allowed to say "It is a fact that slavery is wrong" simply to show how stable and serious our disapproval is.