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?

"I assume by "Modal thinking in philosophy" you are talking about the sorts of presumptions ..."

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part ..."
"Modal thinking in philosophy assumes that the laws of physics are fixed, while postulaing that ..."

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part ..."
"When I speak of "worlds", I am speaking in the sense used in modal logics, ..."

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part ..."
"I think the logically necessary argument for a deity is plausible (IE I don't know ..."

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment