Podcast
Questions and Answers
What is a possible consequence of holding the view that moral claims do not even purport to report facts?
What is a possible consequence of holding the view that moral claims do not even purport to report facts?
- Rejection of the practical utility of talking as if there were moral facts.
- Inability to express or serve peoples’ emotions and attitudes.
- Compatibility with the belief that moral realism is true.
- Incompatibility with the belief that the facts such claims purport to report do not exist. (correct)
How can someone defending an error theory support their argument?
How can someone defending an error theory support their argument?
- By pointing out that moral claims seem to purport to report facts even though they do not.
- By explaining why people keep arguing despite there being no moral facts. (correct)
- By pointing to the practical utility of talking as if there were moral facts.
- By pointing to the ways in which moral claims are used to express or serve peoples’ emotions and attitudes.
What is a key commitment of moral realists, as mentioned in the text?
What is a key commitment of moral realists, as mentioned in the text?
- Holding that moral claims do not even purport to report facts.
- Acknowledging that the views people embrace might be heavily influenced by their emotions, attitudes, and interests.
- Holding that some moral claims, properly understood, are actually true. (correct)
- Believing that moral claims are made by people with indefensible accounts of moral facts.
What is a strategy mentioned in the text for moral realists to counter the arguments that appeal to the nature of moral disagreement?
What is a strategy mentioned in the text for moral realists to counter the arguments that appeal to the nature of moral disagreement?
Why is it important for moral realists to reject noncognitivism?
Why is it important for moral realists to reject noncognitivism?
How does the text describe the nature of moral disagreement in relation to mere differences?
How does the text describe the nature of moral disagreement in relation to mere differences?
What challenge does moral disagreement pose for moral realism?
What challenge does moral disagreement pose for moral realism?
Why do many believe that moral disagreements are best explained by the supposition that moral claims are our way of expressing emotions or attitudes?
Why do many believe that moral disagreements are best explained by the supposition that moral claims are our way of expressing emotions or attitudes?
What is the first line of explanation for the sort of moral disagreements discussed in the text?
What is the first line of explanation for the sort of moral disagreements discussed in the text?
How do some people argue against the appearance of moral disagreements as devices for expressing or serving different emotions, attitudes, and interests?
How do some people argue against the appearance of moral disagreements as devices for expressing or serving different emotions, attitudes, and interests?
