RE: “Normative” ethical theories
September 7, 2025 at 9:23 am
(This post was last modified: September 7, 2025 at 9:35 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Briefly going over our last convo to recall what you might mean by your anti realist commitments I'd say you're going to find good books thin on the ground. Off the top of my head, I'd say you're looking for quasi realist stuff. Normative force, with air quotes. Simon Blackburn on expressivism?
Here's an interview, mostly on metaethics, but at the very end (it's time stamped in the description) the interviewer asks how we live a good life if or when we believe there are no moral facts. First order ethics. In the process of answering he makes some good critical observations about realism-in-practice and despite my (seeming) metaethical disagreement with the moral system he's describing I find no fault with his practical reasoning and what he considers the "normative force"...and it's limitations. Descriptively speaking, I'm absolutely certain that some of my moral statements and just as certainly not all of my moral statements are very likely to be contained in or best described as expressivist quasi realism. Ultimately, his idea of how to live a good life boils down to biological and cultural intersubjectivity and the historical role of moral thought vis-a-vis outcomes in our lives. A variation on benevolent pragmatism.
Even if there are no moral facts, not being a dick seems like a swell ethical goal in our day to day lives. It's worked out for many people before, and there's no reason to think it won't continue to work out. Much earlier in the video he briefly describes normative disagreement as something like plan disagreement. He wants to go to the mountains, his wife wants to go to the beach. If we transport that into dick terms, not being a dick and being a dick are at least potentially goal disagreements but not necessarily metaethical disagreements, particularly as either side can conceivably contain both contents. IE "being a dick" might be "moral". Even so, ultimately, and according to blackburn, the final word on a moral disagreement boils down to "well, that's just not something I would do". There may be better answers to such disagreements - but does there need to be?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUabDoNx3iY
Here's an interview, mostly on metaethics, but at the very end (it's time stamped in the description) the interviewer asks how we live a good life if or when we believe there are no moral facts. First order ethics. In the process of answering he makes some good critical observations about realism-in-practice and despite my (seeming) metaethical disagreement with the moral system he's describing I find no fault with his practical reasoning and what he considers the "normative force"...and it's limitations. Descriptively speaking, I'm absolutely certain that some of my moral statements and just as certainly not all of my moral statements are very likely to be contained in or best described as expressivist quasi realism. Ultimately, his idea of how to live a good life boils down to biological and cultural intersubjectivity and the historical role of moral thought vis-a-vis outcomes in our lives. A variation on benevolent pragmatism.
Even if there are no moral facts, not being a dick seems like a swell ethical goal in our day to day lives. It's worked out for many people before, and there's no reason to think it won't continue to work out. Much earlier in the video he briefly describes normative disagreement as something like plan disagreement. He wants to go to the mountains, his wife wants to go to the beach. If we transport that into dick terms, not being a dick and being a dick are at least potentially goal disagreements but not necessarily metaethical disagreements, particularly as either side can conceivably contain both contents. IE "being a dick" might be "moral". Even so, ultimately, and according to blackburn, the final word on a moral disagreement boils down to "well, that's just not something I would do". There may be better answers to such disagreements - but does there need to be?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUabDoNx3iY
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
