{"title":"Is Moore’s Moral Objectivist Argument Sufficient Against Moral Relativism?","authors":"Burhan Başarslan","doi":"10.47425/marifetname.vi.1468172","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study aims to expose certain weaknesses in Moore’s moral objectivist argument against moral relativism and subjectivism. It suggests that a moral objectivist argument has to explain moral diversity against moral relativism. Moral relativism is one of the most critical debates in metaethics, and it can be interpreted in two different ways: one as moral realism and the other as moral anti-realism. Moral realism, when reduced to moral objectivism, excludes moral relativism and subjectivism beyond moral realism. I will refer to this interpretation as narrowed moral realism. But moral realism can be extended in an inclusive way such as moral subjectivism and relativism. I will refer to this as extended moral realism. Due to the focus of the study, I will introduce both extended moral realism and narrowed moral realism in the introduction section. Then, I will address G. E. Moore's narrowed moral realism. I will criticize his arguments for their failure to explain the diversity of moral codes. Finally, I suggest that moral subjectivism and moral relativism can be appropriately addressed within extended moral realism. Contrary to Moore's claims, I contend that moral relativism and moral subjectivism would be claims within moral realism. I also evaluate the two main claims from a moral realist perspective. Moral subjectivism claims that moral reality is constructed by an individual’s mental state. Moral relativism argues that social codes of human conduct completely determine moral reality. In the first section of the study, I discussed moral relativism from a Moorean perspective, which asserts that there are self-evident and indefinable truths at the foundation of objective morality. The second section contends that if Moore is correct, however, it necessitates an explanation for why different cultures accept different moral codes. The third section argues the fact that Moore fails to provide any explanation for this. In the conclusion part, I claim that moral relativism and moral subjectivism can be viewed as moral realist theories based on the failure of Moore's arguments.","PeriodicalId":506966,"journal":{"name":"Marifetname","volume":"73 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Marifetname","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47425/marifetname.vi.1468172","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This study aims to expose certain weaknesses in Moore’s moral objectivist argument against moral relativism and subjectivism. It suggests that a moral objectivist argument has to explain moral diversity against moral relativism. Moral relativism is one of the most critical debates in metaethics, and it can be interpreted in two different ways: one as moral realism and the other as moral anti-realism. Moral realism, when reduced to moral objectivism, excludes moral relativism and subjectivism beyond moral realism. I will refer to this interpretation as narrowed moral realism. But moral realism can be extended in an inclusive way such as moral subjectivism and relativism. I will refer to this as extended moral realism. Due to the focus of the study, I will introduce both extended moral realism and narrowed moral realism in the introduction section. Then, I will address G. E. Moore's narrowed moral realism. I will criticize his arguments for their failure to explain the diversity of moral codes. Finally, I suggest that moral subjectivism and moral relativism can be appropriately addressed within extended moral realism. Contrary to Moore's claims, I contend that moral relativism and moral subjectivism would be claims within moral realism. I also evaluate the two main claims from a moral realist perspective. Moral subjectivism claims that moral reality is constructed by an individual’s mental state. Moral relativism argues that social codes of human conduct completely determine moral reality. In the first section of the study, I discussed moral relativism from a Moorean perspective, which asserts that there are self-evident and indefinable truths at the foundation of objective morality. The second section contends that if Moore is correct, however, it necessitates an explanation for why different cultures accept different moral codes. The third section argues the fact that Moore fails to provide any explanation for this. In the conclusion part, I claim that moral relativism and moral subjectivism can be viewed as moral realist theories based on the failure of Moore's arguments.
本研究旨在揭示摩尔反对道德相对主义和主观主义的道德客观主义论证中的某些弱点。研究认为,道德客观主义论证必须针对道德相对主义解释道德多样性。道德相对主义是元伦理学中最关键的争论之一,它可以从两个不同的角度来解释:一个是道德现实主义,另一个是道德反现实主义。道德现实主义被简化为道德客观主义,排除了道德相对主义和道德现实主义之外的主观主义。我将把这种解释称为狭义道德现实主义。但是,道德现实主义可以以一种包容性的方式加以扩展,如道德主观主义和相对主义。我将称之为扩展的道德现实主义。鉴于本研究的重点,我将在引言部分介绍扩展的道德现实主义和狭义的道德现实主义。然后,我将讨论 G. E. 摩尔的狭义道德现实主义。我将批评他的论点未能解释道德规范的多样性。最后,我建议道德主观主义和道德相对主义可以在扩展的道德现实主义中得到适当的解决。与摩尔的主张相反,我认为道德相对主义和道德主观主义是道德现实主义的主张。我还从道德现实主义的角度对这两种主要主张进行了评价。道德主观主义认为,道德现实是由个人的心理状态构建的。道德相对主义认为,人类的社会行为准则完全决定了道德现实。在本研究的第一部分,我从摩尔主义的角度讨论了道德相对主义,摩尔主义主张客观道德的基础是不言而喻、不可确定的真理。第二部分认为,如果摩尔是正确的,那么就有必要解释为什么不同的文化接受不同的道德规范。第三部分论证了摩尔未能对此做出任何解释的事实。在结论部分,我认为基于摩尔论证的失败,道德相对主义和道德主观主义可以被视为道德现实主义理论。