Moral realism and anti-realism are two opposing views on the nature of morality. Realists believe objective moral facts exist independently of what anyone thinks, while anti-realists argue morality is subjective or mind-dependent.

This debate is central to metaethics, which examines the foundations of moral reasoning. Understanding these perspectives helps us critically analyze ethical claims and their implications for how we approach moral issues in practice.

Moral Realism vs Anti-realism

Core Tenets of Moral Realism

• Moral realism is the view that objective moral facts and properties exist independently of what anyone thinks about them
  • Moral facts are mind-independent features of reality, not contingent on any individual's or society's beliefs or attitudes
  • Moral statements are truth-apt, meaning they are capable of being objectively true or false
• Moral universalism, often associated with realism, holds that moral facts apply universally to all people at all times
  • There are absolute, universal moral standards that hold regardless of cultural context or individual opinion (prohibitions on murder, rape, etc.)

Core Tenets of Moral Anti-realism

• Moral anti-realism denies the existence of objective moral facts and holds that moral statements cannot be objectively true or false
  • Moral judgments are mind-dependent, not factual claims about objective reality
  • Moral statements express subjective states like emotions, attitudes, or conventions rather than purporting to represent moral facts
• Non-cognitivist theories, a form of anti-realism, hold that moral statements do not express beliefs and are not truth-apt
  • Emotivism claims moral statements merely express emotions or attitudes ("Boo to stealing!")
  • Prescriptivism analyzes moral statements as disguised imperatives or commands ("Do not steal!")
• Moral relativism, often associated with anti-realism, holds that moral facts are relative to the conventions or practices of cultures or even individuals
  • There are no universal moral standards that apply to all people at all times
  • Moral judgments are contextual and cannot be legitimately critiqued from outside that framework

Arguments for and against Objective Morality

Arguments for Moral Realism

• Moral realism best explains the nature of moral discourse, disagreement, and the appearance that some people are really correct or mistaken in their moral views
  • Moral disagreements seem to concern factual disputes about objective moral truths, not just clashes of subjective preference
  • The way we talk about morality, saying things are right, wrong, good, bad etc. seems to presuppose moral facts
• Common moral intuitions and experiences are evidence of real moral facts
  • Feelings of guilt, indignation, or motivation to be moral are best explained by the existence of objective moral facts we sense
  • The compelling phenomenology of morality, the way it seems to be objective, is evidence that it is in fact objective
• Moral progress and convergence are evidence of objective moral truth
  • Over time, there is progress and convergence on objective moral issues (abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, etc.)
  • This is best explained by the existence of real moral facts that we are discovering, like in scientific progress

Arguments against Moral Realism

• The argument from queerness contends that objective moral facts would be metaphysically strange entities unlike anything else we know of
  • Objective moral facts do not seem to be scientifically observable or part of the natural, empirical world
  • Moral facts would have to be non-natural, "queer" properties which are difficult to make sense of
• Evolutionary debunking arguments aim to show that the origins of our moral faculties in evolutionary processes undermine moral realism
  • Natural selection shaped our moral intuitions/beliefs to aid survival and reproduction, not to track objective moral truths
  • The distorting influence of evolutionary forces on the content of our moral judgments defeats the assumption that they reliably track objective moral facts
• The diversity of moral views across time and culture casts doubt on the existence of objective moral facts
  • Widespread, persistent moral disagreement is more difficult for realists to explain than anti-realists
  • Moral diversity fits better with anti-realist views that morality is a human construction that varies by cultural context

Implications of Moral Realism and Anti-realism

Implications of Moral Realism

• If moral realism is true, there are objective moral standards by which to judge the rightness or wrongness of actions
  • We can critique the moral views or practices of other cultures or individuals as objectively mistaken
  • Discovering objective moral truths is possible which can help resolve moral dilemmas and disagreements
• Moral motivation may be stronger since people would be responding to objective moral facts rather than arbitrary subjective preferences
  • We ought to be compelled to act in line with objective moral requirements, giving morality a special normative authority
• Moral realism provides a secure foundation for moral judgments and a strong basis for moral critique or reform
  • Without moral realism, morality may lack a sufficiently robust metaphysical and epistemological footing to support moral claims

Implications of Moral Anti-realism

• If anti-realism is true, it may be harder to critique the moral views or practices of other cultures as mistaken since there is no objective standard
  • Moral critique and reform may be undermined by the lack of objective moral truth
  • Moral disagreement may be harder to resolve since there are no objective moral facts to appeal to
• Anti-realism seems to conflict with the surface grammar of moral statements and arguments
  • Moral statements appear to express beliefs and reference objective facts (e.g. "It is true that murder is wrong")
  • Ordinary moral thought and talk seems realist, which anti-realism must reject as mistaken or reinterpret
• Anti-realist views may better explain moral diversity since morality is not objective but humanly-constructed
  • The variety of moral views and practices is expected if morality is invented rather than discovered
  • Persistent moral disagreement makes more sense if there is no objective fact of the matter to resolve it

Forms of Moral Realism and Anti-realism

Naturalist vs Non-Naturalist Moral Realism

• Naturalist moral realism holds that moral facts are reducible to or identical with natural, scientific facts
  • Moral properties like goodness could be defined in terms of natural properties like happiness, health, etc.
  • Moral facts would be objective features of the natural world, studied like other scientific facts
• Non-naturalist moral realism holds that moral facts are sui generis and not reducible to natural facts
  • Moral facts are objective but irreducible, non-natural features of reality
  • Moral properties like goodness are distinct from and not definable in terms of natural, descriptive properties

Subjectivist vs Intersubjectivist Anti-realism

• Subjectivist anti-realism grounds morality in the subjective states (e.g. feelings, emotions, attitudes) of individuals
  • Moral judgments are neither true nor false; they are expressions of personal preferences or sentiments
  • "X is immoral" means something like "Boo to X!" or "I disapprove of X"
• Intersubjectivist anti-realism grounds morality in the conventions or agreements of societies
  • Moral judgments are neither true nor false; they are expressions of cultural constructs or social contracts
  • "X is immoral" means something like "X violates the norms/values of our culture"

Error Theory vs Non-Cognitivism

• Error theory is an anti-realist view that holds that all positive moral statements are false
  • Moral statements purport to refer to objective moral facts, but since these do not exist, they are systematically false
  • "Murder is wrong" is a false claim because it asserts an objective moral fact that does not exist
• Non-cognitivism is an anti-realist view that holds that moral statements are not truth-apt; they do not express beliefs and are neither true nor false
  • Moral statements are not factual claims at all, but express emotions or attitudes
  • "Murder is wrong" does not express a belief about wrongness, but rather expresses a negative attitude towards murder