An Argument Against Moral Facts

In a seminar on Metaethics (h/t John Brunero) , I encountered an argument against moral facts that I hadn’t heard before. Here is a brief sketch:

(1) We’re justified in believing in some fact only if it plays a role in the explanation of our observations and other non-moral facts.
(2) Moral facts don’t play this role.

(3) We are not justified in believing moral facts.

In order to motivate (1), we can appeal to some flavors of naturalism. Many will argue that a completed science will account for (or give an explanatory account of) everything that exists. That is, a completed science will explain all physical phenomena. We’re justified in believing in electrons, in neurons, and in germs, insofar as they explain our observations of the natural world.

As for (2), it seems that we can explain the world around us without resorting to explanations that involve moral facts. We can explain the behavior of human beings with reference to psychology, biology, and neuroscience without using moral terms. We can explain political, social, and cultural actions without requiring moral facts to be a part of that explanation. It’s hard to see what explanatory work moral facts do.

Thoughts?

"Just to respond briefly to those assertions I could readily make sense of:Neither Newton nor ..."

The Laws of Physics and the ..."
"I've presented a similar position over on Reppert's blog: that the person acting for good ..."

The Laws of Physics and the ..."
"Epistemic voluntarism is not the only alternative to Dr. Parson's "which ethical or epistemic norms ..."

The Laws of Physics and the ..."
"Dianelos,I am not ignoring you, but, as a practical matter, you and I are so ..."

The Laws of Physics and the ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment