Disagreement: Ethics and Elsewhere

1998

The Journal of Ethics, 2009

Moral disagreement is widely held to pose a threat for metaethical realism and objectivity. In this paper I attempt to understand how it is that moral disagreement is supposed to present a problem for metaethical realism. I do this by going through several distinct (though often related) arguments from disagreement, carefully distinguishing between them, and critically evaluating their merits. My conclusions are rather skeptical: Some of the arguments I discuss fail rather clearly. Others supply with a challenge to realism, but not one we have any reason to believe realism cannot address successfully. Others beg the question against the moral realist, and yet others raise serious objections to realism, but ones that-when carefully stated-can be seen not to be essentially related to moral disagreement. Arguments based on moral disagreement itself have almost no weight, I conclude, against moral realism.

This paper develops two new arguments to show that realism about epistemic evaluative facts implies realism about moral evaluative facts. Previous attempts to derive moral from epistemic realism rely on the claim that arguments for moral realism overgeneralize to impugn moral facts, but do not show that epistemic facts entail moral facts. I first argue that an agent's diligence or negligence as an investigator is sometimes relevant to the epistemic status of his beliefs. Because investigative negligence and diligence are sensitive to ethical considerations, realism about epistemic assessments in these cases implies realism (or at least non-nihilism) about those ethical considerations that are presupposed. Second, epistemic reasons presuppose facts about what evidence an agent has at a time. I argue that the notion of evidence possession is also entangled with ethical considerations. If we deny this, then we end up with an unacceptably narrow conception of evidence possession.

However, not all attitudes are so easily classifiable. In many cases we might find ourselves unable to tell whether someone's attitude is approvable or condemnable from the moral standpoint. Does this imply that, in such situations, our moral judgement is neither true nor false in a determinate way? The projectivist may handle this case by advising us to keep on doing what we often do, namely to argue about the undecidable moral judgement as if it would be either true or false, and not both. The principle of bivalence would still figure as part of the logic of moral discourse, although it would be justified as a regulative principle. 12 The above considerations show that ethical antirealism is not incompatible with the adoption of the principle of bivalence. The semantic definition of realism alleges that this principle is acceptable only by ethical realists. It seems, therefore, that the purely semantic approach to the debate over realism in ethics is wrong. In general, I would argue that the issue between ethical realists and their opponents is not whether some semantic or logical principle applies in moral discourse, but why it does so. In order to answer this question we need to take a closer look at the ontological and epistemological theses of the participants in the moral realism debate. 1.4 Ontology Whatever else it involves, realism is a claim about the reality of something. Ethical realism, at its minimum, is the claim that ethical qualities are real. The notion of 'reality' is part of the conceptual armour of ontological inquiry. Therefore, ethical realism is an ontological position. 12 Cf. Blackburn's discussion of the pragmatic considerations that may justify the adoption of the principle of bivalence in legal contexts-(1980): 23-27, (1984) sec. 6.4. The above paragraph provides a simple, intuitive way to understand realism in ethics. However, the very simplicity of the ontological definition might leave us unsatisfied, perhaps on the ground that it does not suffice to state that according to ethical realism ethical qualities are real: it should also be explained what it is for an ethical quality to be real. More accurately, we need an account of the reality of ethical qualities that would help us demarcate the doctrine of ethical realism from its rivals. A first way to clarify the claim that ethical qualities are real would be to present it as equivalent to the claim that these qualities exist. 13 The correspondent attack on the doctrine of ethical realism would be to argue that ethical qualities do not exist. 14 However, many contemporary antirealists do not dispute that, in a certain sense, ethical properties indeed exist. Therefore, the thesis that ethical properties or facts exist is not the distinguishing mark of the realist position. I shall support this claim by illustrating how prescriptivists and projectivists can argue for the existence of ethical properties without committing themselves to the ontological doctrine of ethical realism. Prescriptivists suggest that a moral property, like 'goodness' may be said to exist if it fulfils any of the following criteria: (i) we can meaningfully say of something that it is good; (ii) we can truly say of something that it is good; or (iii) 'goodness' can be referred to, i.e. it can take the subject-place in a true or false statement. 15 Prescriptivists accept (i) because they assert that judgements including ethical predicates are meaningful. They can also accept (ii) and (iii) because, as we saw earlier in this chapter, they can hold that the notion of truth is applicable in moral discourse. Therefore, prescriptivists can be happy to embrace the view that 13 Platts (1980a), Brink (1984), Dancy (1993) ch. 5. 14 Mackie (1977): 19. Note, however, that Mackie asserts that only objective values do not exist; cf. below sec. 2.2. 15 Hare (1985a): 41-43. The above considerations show that antirealists need not object to the claim that, in a certain sense, ethical properties exist. Therefore, the realist position in ethics has to involve something more than the claim that these properties exist. Dummett's account of realism seems to indicate what this 'more' could be. He claims that realism entails that the referents of statements in a given class exist independently of our knowledge of them. 19 This claim combines an ontological with an epistemological assertion. More precisely, it qualifies the ontological doctrine of the existence of certain things with an epistemological clause about the relation of those things to human knowledge. I call the latter clause 'epistemological' with some reservations, since it does not directly concern either the nature or the possibility of human knowledge. 20 However, I admit that it might be useful to think of this claim as epistemological for two reasons. From a systematic standpoint, the claim that certain objects exist independently of human knowledge reveals something of importance about the limits of human knowledge and, hence, about its nature. From a historical standpoint, the above claim is a product of the succession of ontology by epistemology in the throne of first philosophy. As we shall see in the next section the role of knowledge in a proper definition of realism was first underlined by one of the best epistemologists of all times. 1.5 Epistemology Declarations of independence from knowledge figure predominantly in the modern discussions of metaphysical realism. Kant was probably the first to define realism as the claim that the world 19 Dummett (1982): 230. 20 For an unreserved adoption of the label, as well as of the doctrine that it expresses, see Grayling (1992). exists independently of the cognitive aspects of human mind. 21 His approach has influenced the work of several philosophers who endorse realism in ethics. 22 It may be useful, therefore, to consider some of the elements of the Kantian theory that bear directly on the problem of the definition of realism in ethics. Kant asserts that we perceive objects as existing independently of our perception of them. He calls this position "empirical realism". 23 The question he set himself to answer is how we could justify this position. There are two ways to approach this issue. One is to adopt the doctrine of "transcendental realism" according to which space, time and the things that appear in them exist independently of our cognition. 24 The other is to adopt the doctrine of "transcendental idealism" according to which things appear necessarily in ways determined by the a priori categories of human mind. 25 Kant, of course, favours the latter of the above options. Transcendental idealism states that the objects of our perception are not things "in themselves" but things in their relation to "us and [to] our sensibility". 26 Kant calls things of the former type "noumena" and of the latter type "phenomena". 27 He asserts that 21 Kant (1781/87, henceforth KrV) A 439. 22 See, for instance, Nagel (1980), McDowell (1981b), Putnam (1987). In what follows I refer only to this school of ethical realism and, in particular, to the work of John McDowell and of his realist allies. See below, secs 3.4-3.6, for a discussion of the ontological doctrines of 'Cornell' realists, and Hatzimoysis (1993) for a critical account of their epistemological doctrines. 23 KrV A 369. 24 KrV A491/B519, A543/B571. 25 KrV A26/B42-A28/B44. 26 KrV A369. 27 KrV B307-309. the dependence of phenomena on our sensibility explains how human subjects may form representations of objects, that seem to correspond to real items in the world. According to Kant, the transcendental idealist's account of the objects of our perceptions explains and, in that sense, justifies the empirical realist's claim that we perceive phenomena as existing independently of us. 28 It might help our understanding of Kant's position if we consider it in the light of the distinction between ontological and phenomenological claims. Transcendental idealism is an ontological claim about how certain objects exist : it asserts that the objects of our experience exist only in relation to our cognitive apparatus. Empirical realism is a phenomenological claim about how we experience these objects: it states that we experience spatiotemporal objects as existing 'outside us', independently of our cognition. Contemporary ethical realists employ a revised version of the above Kantian distinction in claiming that we experience the world of natural and moral facts as existing independently of us. They argue also that this claim is best supported by the hypothesis that the realm of appearances is metaphysically dependent on human mind. However, they disagree with Kant on a crucial point: whereas Kant believed that the dependence of appearances on our conceptual apparatus entails some form of idealist ontology, most contemporary ethical realists contend that such a dependence deducts nothing from the reality of ethical properties or facts. I shall now reconstruct, in outline, the main argument offered in support of their contention. The distinction between reality and appearances can be drawn only from a human standpoint, by employing the tools offered by our language or 'conceptual scheme'. We can place an object on either side of this distinction only if we can talk or reflect about that object in a 28 An examination of Kant's arguments in support of this claim is, needless to say, beyond the scope of this introduction. I have discussed some of the methodological aspects of Kant's defence of transcendental idealism in (1991): 2-9. coherent, meaningful way. However noumena are, by definition, inaccessible by means of our conceptual apparatus. Hence, noumena cannot figure in either part of the reality-appearances distinction. Therefore, this ontological distinction concerns only the realm of phenomena or, in Kant's terms, the realm of things that exist dependently on us and our sensibility. Ethical qualities are dependent on the...

Philosophy Compass

This article is about the implications of a conciliatory view about the epistemology of peer disagreement for our moral beliefs. Many have endorsed a conciliatory view about the epistemology of peer disagreement according to which if we find ourselves in a disagreement about some matter with another whom we should judge to be our epistemic peer on that matter, we must revise our judgment about that matter. This article focuses on three issues about the implications of conciliationism for our moral beliefs. Firstly, whether there is an asymmetry between the implications of conciliationism for the epistemic status of our moral beliefs and the implications of conciliationism for the epistemic status of our non-moral beliefs; for instance, some have argued that conciliationism leads to epistemological moral skepticism but not to epistemological non-moral skepticism. Secondly, what the implications of conciliationism are for the epistemic status of particular moral beliefs. Thirdly, whether conciliationism's impact on the epistemic status of our moral beliefs has practical implications.

ETHOS: Dialogues in Philosophy and Social sciences , 2024

This paper attempts to deconstruct anti-realist's denial of moral facts. One of the controversial issues in meta-ethics is the debate about the ontological status of moral facts. This is an issue between moral realists and moral anti-realists. While moral realism affirms the existence of moral facts, moral anti-realism on the other hand is often interpreted as a thesis that denies the existence of moral facts. Thus, the fundamental problem however, is how to interpret this denial. This question is so pertinent because taking the debate at face value, scholars do not always pay attention to different ways by which this denial could be interpreted. This paper intends to fill the gap. The paper argues that contrary to the parochial way of looking at the anti-realist's denial of moral facts mainly from the absolute sense, there is another possible way by which the denial could be understood, which is the non-absolute sense. Essentially, in deconstructing moral anti-realist's denial of moral facts, this paper clarifies and examines (i) idealist-antirealists' argument, (ii) logical positivists' claim in defense of moral anti-realism.

Oxford Studies in Metaethics, 2019

Arguments from disagreement against non-skeptical moral realism begin by noticing (or supposing) widespread, fundamental moral disagreement among a certain group of people (e.g., the folk, moral philosophers, idealized agents). Then, some skeptical or anti-realist-friendly conclusion is drawn. I argue that arguments from disagreement share a structure that makes them vulnerable to a single, powerful objection: they self-undermine. For each formulation of the argument from disagreement, at least one of its premises casts doubt either on itself or on one of the other premises. On reflection, this should not be surprising. Proponents of these arguments seek to derive a very strong metaphysical or epistemological conclusion about morality (e.g., that there are no moral facts, that none of our moral beliefs are epistemically justified). They must therefore employ very strong metaphysical or epistemological premises. But, given the pervasiveness of disagreement in philosophy—especially about metaphysics and epistemology—very strong premises are almost certain to be the subject of widespread, intractable disagreement. And this is precisely the sort of disagreement that proponents of these arguments think undermine moral claims. If so, then these arguments undermine their own premises. If the argument presented in this paper is sound, it provides realists a single, unified strategy for responding to arguments from disagreement. It also provides a challenge for any future arguments from disagreement that philosophers might advance.

2004

Journal of the American Philosophical Association

Moral disagreement is sometimes thought to pose problems for moral realism because it shows that we cannot achieve knowledge of the moral facts the realists posit. In particular, it is ‘fundamental’ moral disagreement—that is, disagreement that is not due to distorting factors such as ignorance of relevant nonmoral facts, bad reasoning skills, or the like—that is supposed to generate skeptical implications. In this paper, we show that this version of the disagreement challenge is flawed as it stands. The reason is that the epistemic assumptions it requires are incompatible with the possibility of fundamental disagreement. However, we also present an alternative reconstruction of the challenge that avoids the problem. The challenge we present crucially invokes the principle that knowledge requires ‘adherence’. While that requirement is usually not discussed in this context, we argue that it provides a promising explanation of why disagreement sometimes leads to skepticism.

The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 1991

Science, thanks to its link with observation, retains some title to a correspondence theory of truth; but a coherence theory is evidently the lot of ethics. --W. V. Quine