Let’s define our terms. Moral realism is a conjunction of three claims:
(i) Claims of the form “x is im/moral” assert facts/propositions.
(ii) Claims of the form “x is im/moral” are true iff the relevant fact obtains.
(iii) At least one claim of the form “x is im/moral” is true.
This should be distinguished from moral non-naturalism (which asserts that the moral facts are somehow transcendent or abstract or nonphysical), moral universalism (which asserts that a single set of moral truths holds for everyone), and moral primitivism (which asserts that moral concepts are primitive, metaphysically basic, and/or conceptually irreducible).
I think Robb’s intention was to say that moral non-naturalism, universalism, and primitivism are all species of the moral-realist genus, but that one can be a moral realist without being any of those three (as EY is, I believe).
My intent was just to highlight that realism, non-naturalism, universalism, and primitivism are different ideas. I wasn’t weighing in on their relationship, beyond their non-identity. Universalism and primitivism, for instance, I’d usually consider compatible with an error theory of morality (and thus with anti-realism): Moral statements are semantically irreducible or structurally applicable to everyone, but fail to meet their truth-conditions. Similarly, I could imagine people committed to anti-realism precisely because moral facts would have to be non-natural. We may not want to call the latter view ‘moral non-naturalism,’ though.
Isn’t EY a moral realist?
Let’s define our terms. Moral realism is a conjunction of three claims:
(i) Claims of the form “x is im/moral” assert facts/propositions.
(ii) Claims of the form “x is im/moral” are true iff the relevant fact obtains.
(iii) At least one claim of the form “x is im/moral” is true.
This should be distinguished from moral non-naturalism (which asserts that the moral facts are somehow transcendent or abstract or nonphysical), moral universalism (which asserts that a single set of moral truths holds for everyone), and moral primitivism (which asserts that moral concepts are primitive, metaphysically basic, and/or conceptually irreducible).
I don’t see how those three exclude Moral Non-Naturalism. Certainly, the majority of divisions I’ve seen have put MN-N as a form of Moral Realism...
I think Robb’s intention was to say that moral non-naturalism, universalism, and primitivism are all species of the moral-realist genus, but that one can be a moral realist without being any of those three (as EY is, I believe).
Could be. Re-reading the comment hasn’t helped me clear up my confusion, so maybe RobBB can clarify this for us.
My intent was just to highlight that realism, non-naturalism, universalism, and primitivism are different ideas. I wasn’t weighing in on their relationship, beyond their non-identity. Universalism and primitivism, for instance, I’d usually consider compatible with an error theory of morality (and thus with anti-realism): Moral statements are semantically irreducible or structurally applicable to everyone, but fail to meet their truth-conditions. Similarly, I could imagine people committed to anti-realism precisely because moral facts would have to be non-natural. We may not want to call the latter view ‘moral non-naturalism,’ though.
Well put, thank you.
Down to definitions. He no longer believes that there is some “higher good” beyond mere human ethics.
Okay, but that’s orthogonal to the question of moral realism.
(That’s what I meant by moral realism.)