Michael Smith Argument Against Moral Realism

Better Essays
Open Document
Open Document
900 Words
Michael Smith Argument Against Moral Realism
I will be discussing Michael Smith argument against moral realism.I will restate his

points then argue with him against moral realism. I do not agree with his point

completely but, i will show and give kudos there they are needed.

In addition with my argument i will be introducing our good friend David Hume and his

argument in opposition for anti-realism.

Lastly, i will offer my personal opinion on ways i disagree and yet, agree with some

aspects on moral realism.

Realism as described by Michael Smith falls into the realm of two objective

goals that realism described by him needs to have and or address. The first feature is the

implicit in our concern to get the answers to moral question correct and the second
…show more content…
In order for moral realism to exist, moral practices must be both objectively true and have the

ability to psychologically motivate us.

P2. Beliefs represent the actual world whereas desires represent the world as it should be.

P3. Only desires motivate action.

C1. Therefore, in order for moral realism to meet the motivational demand, all moral

prescriptions would need to be represented as desires.

P4. Only beliefs can be assessed for truth or falsehood.

C2. Therefore, in order to for moral realism to be objective, moral prescriptions would

need to be represented as beliefs.

C3. C1 and C1 contradict one another; therefore, realism is not compatible with human psychology. C. Therefore, moral realism does not exist.

This is sound argument if the condition for realism was dependant on the state that moral

practices must be both objectively true and be able to psychological motivate us. Michael's

argument takes a anti-humean approach to say that we can depend on our desires if we were

fully-rational. If values don’t drive us to any moral wrong but what do they do? Objectively

does lead us to a “goal” in some aspect to some aspect but is it attainable? I don’t think
…show more content…
We can argue with where is his foundation for this idea. How can we

evaluate why he thinks this way? There are instances where we cannot analyze someone's

objective claim. Next, we must look at the real-world relationships, the moral realist will say that

there is a moral hierarchy or supreme being which states which has absolute moral authority.

What would they refer to when it comes to “truth”?

The moral theorist runs into a dilemma with abstract ideas such as the nature of god and

if god is good. Or is this powerful being beyond the realm of morality? The question i pose to the

moral theorist is if god is the gold standard for morality in their opinion can

atheists/non-religious or even secularists consider themselves moral. Some claim to be moral, to

able to not let religious opinion state how they should be for certain standards such as gay

marriage or abortion are those individuals right about their morality? The moral theorist would

like morality to be followed according to the objective moral code but can we.

Morality, should not be decided by an absolute standard because it is not consistent with how morality changes. There is too many factors too say objective morality is the way too

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful