Moral Realism

Moral Realism is a non nihilist form of cognitivism which suggests that ethical sentences expresses propositions of which some are true. Those propositions which are made true by objective features of the world are independent of subjective opinion. Moral realism is further divided into ethical naturalism and ethical non naturalism. Most philosophers and meta-ethicists support Moral realism. Some of the prominent moral realists are John McDowell, G.E. Moore, Richard Boyd and Plato. Norman Geras argues that Karl Marx was a moral realist.

The robust model of moral realism classifies moral realists to three theses namely the semantic theses, the alethic theses and the metaphysical theses. The minimal model is not much concerned about the metaphysical theses as it happens to be an object of contention among moral realists. This dispute is important because acceptance or rejection of metaphysical theses is done by employment of the robust model. Classifying moral subjectivism has also been disagreed by the robust model and the minimal model.

Moral realism allows the normal rules of logic to be applied directly on moral statements. Moral belief could be proved false and unjustified as factual belief would be done. This problem arises due to expressivism . Moral realism has the capacity to resolve moral disagreements. If two moral beliefs contradict one another everyone involved would seek the right answer to solve the disagreement. Since meta-ethics do not consider a moral belief is wrong, they cannot resolve disagreements.

For a moral realist Moral facts are as definite as mathematical facts. Moral realism depends on a lot of variables and questions of which all have to be answered for a moral realist to accept a moral fact. Those who criticize moral realism are known as anti realist and have important arguments with the theories formed by moral realists. Moral thinking involves a considerable amount of one’s emotions and feelings. In this case people argue that what appeals to them as good and those that do not appeal as bad. Thereby we merely express our emotions and feelings. There are ample criticisms against moral realism. The first of them is when moral realism could solve conflicts, how did the conflict arise on the first place. Other critics find moral facts nonmaterial and unable to be accessed by scientific method. Emotivists or non cognitivitist argue that wrong actions do produce measurable results in negative emotional reactions. Ethical naturalism also criticizes Moral realism.

Questions:

• What is meant by Moral realism?
• What are three theses classified by moral realism?