Issues with Moral anti-realism

• Moral Nihilism,

  They're saying nothing is of moral value or has any moral meaning. As they say moral properties do not exist outside the mind.

  • If moral properties don't exist is nothing of moral value or meaning? (nihilism)
  • What we do can't be good/bad if moral statements don't exist; moral-realism considers ethics, anti-realists don't
  • If moral statements have no truth value e.g murder is not seen as wrong, if morals aren't real, morality doesn't matter - people do what they want, causing the world to go to chaos
  • Any act can take place without being accused of wrongness - it doesn't exist
• As a response to moral nihilism, Ayer and Hare argue we can still act ethically,

  • With Ayer's emotivism, we can find morality based on our approval/disapproval. Most people would say; "boo, I disapprove of murder" and we conclude murder is bad
  • With Prescriptivism , we know we know from value judgments what is moral "murder causes pain, it is bad" and so we know not to kill.
  • They still believe morals have meanings, but they are based on feelings/meaning.
• Moral progress

  • If there is no moral reality, our moral values cannot become better/worse - we cannot progress as a society
  • Moral values can change (consensus used to believe slavery was okay, consensus now is it's bad)
  • With moral anti-realism we cannot say something is objectively right/wrong, we cannot progress if there is no moral truth
• Defence 1 to criticism of Moral progress - people's moral values and views become more rational, this is progress.

  • Ayer, people create their own morality as they learn and become more rational, making progress.
  • Hare, people can become more consistent and willing to universalise their moral values, this is progress. If people think their friends and family should be free, then everyone should be free, therefore do not agree with slavery
• Defence 2 to criticism of Moral progress - Relative progress based on approval

  • Progress is based on disapproving of past moral codes and approving current ones
  • Society has moved from a principle we once approved of, but now disapprove of
  • This is progress, moral progress is relative to a different point of view.
• The issue of moral language criticises non-cognitvism, moral language is not truth-apt and does not tell us about the world but still has meaning? Does moral language actually do what it is said to do? Ayer & Hare claim moral language has some meaning, but it arguably does not hold the meaning they think it does. Moral language should tell us about objective moral properties
• Issue with emotivism and moral language

  • We are emotive and try to influence in many areas of life, not just morality e.g in advertising
  • Moral language isn't always emotive - sometimes it's dispassionate (doesn't always have meaning).
  • Moral language does not always function to influence

  Sometimes we are emotive and show approval/disapproval when talking about things nothing to do with morality and moral language is not always emotive
• Issue with prescriptivism and moral language:

  Moral language does more than just prescribe:

  • Congratulate - "well done you were so GOOD"
  • Complain - "that war was AWFUL"
  • Confess - "i'm sorry it was BAD of me to do that"

  Moral language does a lot more than just prescribing us with what we can do