Moral Disagreement Skeptic's Explanation

Skeptic’s Argument/Explanation

1. Disagreements are widespread in ethics (More widespread then disagreements in science)
2. When there is widespread disagreement about a topic, it is likely that there are no Substantive Truths about the topic
3. Therefore, there are no substantive facts about ethics, i.e moral nihilism is true

Nihilism

1. We believe there are moral facts
2. We end up disagreeing because there are no moral facts

Realist & Nihilist Rebuttals

The realist first asks:

• Why do we assume there are moral facts?
• What leads us to differing moral beliefs? The nihilist says Psychology is the reason why we assume there to be moral facts. The nihilist cites Psychological reasons as to explain why our beliefs diverge. If there are moral facts, then our beliefs would not diverge. The realist can also cite Psychology. So, the nihilists explanation isn’t any better than the realist.

Non-Cognitivism

1. Moral disagreements are not theoretical at all. We only express attitudes
2. When we disagree, we are endorsing or condemning the behaviors discussed

Realist & Non-cognitivist Rebuttals

The realist asks:

• Why does much of our english sound like we are making discrete claims? The non-cognitivist replies that surface grammar is misleading. The realist asks:
• Why have we adopted such a misleading linguistical form that some sentences seem like statements
• If there is no Moral Motivation by facts then why do our opinions diverge? The non-cognitivist replies with Psychological reasons. Linguistic reasons

Counterarguments

Science (Not rejecting any premise)

Fields like science, where there are scientific facts also have disagreements. This does not imply that there are no scientific facts.

Widespread Agreements (Premise 1)

Sometimes there is just one moral factor rather than two equally powerful moral actions that pull against each other. There are certain moral actions that are almost unanimously believe like:

• It is immoral to torture the innocent We implicitly rely on these facts everyday. There are moral disagreements here as well, but the moral disputes that we tend to allocate more attention to are ones that we just happen to focus on.

Non-Intelligible Scope (Premise 1)

There is no scope to this point, no threshold on how many people disputing

Skeptics Inherit Belief In Facts (Premise 2)

Widespread disbelief/belief does not constitute belief in metaethical facts. Nihilists and non-cognitivists both believe in the metaethical facts (no fact being true or no fact being truth-apt).

Likely that there are no facts (Premise 2)

A discussion of Epistimology. We can not see/hear of feel the wrongness of torture, Likewise, none of us can see/hear/feel the laws of mathematics. But, there is no widespread disagreement about mathematics.

The reason is why is ethics is urgent and we have to decide the answer to these moral questions ourselves rather than math, which is not as urgent to find facts in.

Likewise, there is widespread disagreement in Causality. But nobody wants to doubt causation exists.

But, moral nihilism/non-cognitivism is self-refuting when it comes to these because the position depends on facts

Widespread Disagreement about Widespread Disagreement (Premise 2)

If we let the principle apply to itself, then the fact that there is widespread disagreement can be questioned aswell. If democratic opinion can validate a fact, then democratic rejection of democratic rejection itself can mean there is no correlation of democracy to truth aswell.