Philosophy - Two Parts Short Assignment

PART A

Pick one question below and write a substantive post with >100 words. Please try to provide evidence(s) to support your idea(s). Questions: • What does Hume mean when he argues that morality is

something that we projectonto objective reality, rather than being part of reality itself?

• What is moral expressivism, and what does it say about the nature of moral claims?

• In what sense is Hume’s moral expressivism more radical in its treatment of moral claims than the critiques of morality offered by Marx and Nietzsche?

• What ismoral relativism, and how does it offer one (radical) solution to the problem of moral disagreement?

• What ismoral scepticism, and how is it different from moral relativism?

• What is the distinction between moral knowledge scepticismand moral truth scepticism? How do these two forms of scepticism respond to the problem of moral disagreement? How are these approaches different from the response to the problem of moral disagreement offered by moral relativism?

• Why is moral expressivism committed to moral truth scepticism?

• Why is moral relativism not a way of respecting the moral claims of those who you disagree with?

• Is moral disagreement a good motivation for moral relativism? If so, then does the existence of moral agreement offer a motivation againstmoral relativism? Can

there be moral progress, and if so, does that mean that moral relativism must be false?

• What is Mackie’s argument from queernessagainst moral objectivity? Is it compelling, do you think?

• What is Mackie’s argument from relativityagainst moral objectivity? Mackie argues that there are only two credible explanations for the diversity found in our moral judgements, and that neither of them are plausible. What are these explanations, and is Mackie right to dismiss their plausibility?

• What is the distinction between moral realism and moral anti-realism? How might a moral anti-realist nonetheless claim that there is such a thing as an objective morality?

• What is a moral error-theory, of the kind defended by Mackie? Why is it a form of moral anti-realism? How does it differ from moral expressivism?

• What is it about a Kantian ethics that ensures that morality is objective? Why is a Kantian ethics nonetheless a form of moral anti-realism? Why is such a proposal known as constructivism?

• How does an Aristotelian virtue ethics, like a Kantian ethics, claim that there is an objective morality even while endorsing moral anti-realism? How might the analogy with colour be useful in this regard?

• What is moral epistemology? What is the distinction between moral cognitivism and moral non-cognitivism?

• Why is the moral expressivist and the moral knowledge skeptic committed to moral non-cognitivism? What is the crucial difference between the kinds of moral non- cognitivism endorsed by these two proposals?

• How does the very idea of moral experts suggest that moral cognitivism must be true? If there are moral experts, then does it follow that there is nothing wrong in entirely forming our moral opinions by deferring to their judgements (as we often do with regard to experts in other realms, like science)?