Question 1

Does ethical objectivism license intolerance or dogmatism? Explain why many have thought that it does, and explain how an objectivist might reply to this accusation.

Accepted Answer

Ethical objectivism is the belief that there are objective moral truths that are independent of individual beliefs or cultural norms. Some have argued that ethical objectivism can lead to intolerance or dogmatism because it implies that there is a single correct moral standard that everyone should adhere to, and that those who do not adhere to this standard are morally wrong.

Many have thought that ethical objectivism licenses intolerance or dogmatism because it seems to imply that there is no room for moral diversity or disagreement. It can also be seen as promoting a rigid and inflexible approach to morality, where there is no room for considering different perspectives or circumstances.

However, an objectivist might reply to this accusation by arguing that ethical objectivism does not necessarily lead to intolerance or dogmatism. They might argue that recognizing objective moral truths does not mean that there is no room for moral diversity or disagreement. Instead, it simply means that there are certain moral principles that are universally true and should be upheld.

Furthermore, an objectivist might argue that ethical objectivism does not necessarily lead to dogmatism, as it is possible to hold objective moral beliefs while still being open to considering different perspectives and being willing to revise one's beliefs in light of new evidence or arguments.

In conclusion, while some have thought that ethical objectivism licenses intolerance or dogmatism, an objectivist might argue that this is not necessarily the case. They might argue that ethical objectivism can still allow for moral diversity and open-mindedness, while still recognizing the existence of objective moral truths.

Question 2

Is belief in the objectivity of morality compatible with atheism? If so, explain why you think this is. If not, which should we reject?

Accepted Answer

Belief in the objectivity of morality is compatible with atheism. This is because one can believe in the existence of moral truths and principles without necessarily attributing them to a divine being. Atheists can hold the view that moral values and duties are objective and independent of human beliefs or opinions. They may argue that moral principles are grounded in reason, empathy, and the well-being of conscious beings, rather than in the commands of a deity.

In rejecting the idea that belief in the objectivity of morality is incompatible with atheism, we do not need to reject either atheism or the belief in moral objectivity. Instead, we can recognize that individuals can hold a strong commitment to moral values and duties while also rejecting the existence of a god or gods. This allows for a diversity of perspectives and beliefs within the atheist community, while still upholding the importance of moral principles in guiding human behavior.

Question 3

Explain the argument from disagreement. How does the objectivist respond to this argument? Is there a way to modify the argument to avoid the objectivist's response? Explain and defend your answer.

Accepted Answer

The argument from disagreement is the idea that because people disagree about moral issues, there is no objective truth about morality. This argument suggests that if there were objective moral truths, then everyone would agree on them.

The objectivist responds to this argument by pointing out that disagreement does not necessarily mean that there is no objective truth. People can disagree about many things, but that doesn't mean that there is no objective truth about those things. For example, people used to disagree about whether the earth was flat or round, but that didn't mean that there was no objective truth about the shape of the earth.

One way to modify the argument to avoid the objectivist's response is to focus on the nature of moral disagreement. If it can be shown that moral disagreement is fundamentally different from other types of disagreement, then the objectivist's response may not be as effective. For example, if it can be shown that moral disagreement is not just a matter of differing opinions, but is instead a result of fundamental differences in values or beliefs, then the objectivist's response may not apply.

In conclusion, the argument from disagreement suggests that because people disagree about moral issues, there is no objective truth about morality. The objectivist responds by pointing out that disagreement does not necessarily mean that there is no objective truth. However, the argument can be modified to focus on the nature of moral disagreement in order to avoid the objectivist's response.

Question 4

What is a categorical reason? Does morality require the existence of categorical reasons? Do categorical reasons actually exist? Defend your answers.

Accepted Answer

The answer of What is a categorical reason? Does morality...

Question 5

Many people have thought that the fact that we are motivated by our moral beliefs undermines the notion that morality is objective. Explain this argument in detail. Do you think it is a good one? Why or why not?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Many people have thought that the fact...

Question 6

Is ethical objectivism incompatible with science? Why might someone think that it is, and how might an ethical objectivist respond? Which side is correct?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Is ethical objectivism incompatible with science? Why...

Question 7

The three possible accounts of the status of ethics are

Accepted Answer

The three possible accounts of the status of ethics are often understood as objectivism, relativism, and nihilism. Objectivism holds that there are objective moral truths, which exist independently of individuals' beliefs or opinions. Relativism, in contrast, maintains that moral truths are relative to specific cultures, societies, or individuals. Nihilism denies the existence of any objective moral truths and claims that morality is ultimately meaningless. Utilitarianism, Kantianism, and contractarianism, as well as the other options presented in choice A, fall under the broader category of objectivism. The options in choice C present specific ethical theories, rather than accounts of the status of ethics. Choice D describes different approaches to ethical decision-making, rather than accounts of the status of ethics.

Question 8

Ethical objectivism supports

Accepted Answer

Ethical objectivism holds that there are objective moral truths, but it does not necessarily support absolutism or dogmatism, which imply inflexible adherence to specific moral rules or beliefs.

Question 9

The claim that there are no objective truths

Accepted Answer

The claim that there are no objective truths is self-refuting because if the claim itself were true, it would be an objective truth, thereby contradicting its own assertion.

Question 10

If everyone has an equal right to hold his or her own moral opinions, then

Accepted Answer

The statement that everyone has an equal right to hold his or her own moral opinions does not directly address the truth of ethical objectivism, which is the view that there are objective, universal ethical truths. The statement is more about the right to hold opinions rather than the nature of moral truths themselves.

Question 11

According to the text, if tolerance is valuable, then

Accepted Answer

Tolerance is a principle that can be universally valued, supporting the idea of ethical objectivism, which posits that certain moral principles are universally applicable.

Question 12

If ethical objectivism is true, then

Accepted Answer

Ethical objectivism holds that there are universal moral truths, but it allows for the application of these truths to vary based on cultural or societal contexts. This means that while the principles themselves are objective and universal, how they are interpreted or applied can differ among cultures.

Question 13

One problem for the claim that if there is deep and persistent disagreement about something, it cannot be true is that

Accepted Answer

The claim that if there is deep and persistent disagreement about something, it cannot be true fails its own test because if there is deep and persistent disagreement about this claim itself, then by its own logic, it cannot be true.

Question 14

The fact that there is deep and persistent disagreement among scientists shows that

Accepted Answer

The fact that there is deep and persistent disagreement among scientists suggests that there can be deep and persistent disagreement about objective truths, despite the fact that scientific claims are generally thought to be objective. It does not necessarily suggest that scientific claims are not objective or that ethical objectivism is false.

Question 15

If atheism is true, then

Accepted Answer

The answer of If atheism is true, then
...

Question 16

The argument from categorical reasons claims that

Accepted Answer

The argument from categorical reasons actually posits the opposite of what choices B and C suggest. It argues that there are reasons that apply to us regardless of our personal desires or cares, which directly contradicts the statements made in B and C.

Question 17

One way for an objectivist to reply to the argument from categorical reasons is to

Accepted Answer

The answer of One way for an objectivist to reply...

Question 18

Many people think that if moral judgments motivate us, then

Accepted Answer

This question touches on a debate in meta-ethics about the nature of moral judgments. The idea that moral judgments motivate us is often associated with the view that they are not merely cognitive (i.e., not just beliefs about the world) but also have a motivational component. This can lead to the conclusion that if moral judgments motivate, they might not fit the traditional view of beliefs as purely descriptive (A), might challenge the notion that they can be true or false in the same way as factual claims (B), and could argue against ethical objectivism, which holds that moral truths are independent of human feelings or attitudes (C). Thus, all of the options provided are implications that some people might draw from the premise that moral judgments motivate us.

Question 19

How can the ethical objectivist respond to the motivational argument?

Accepted Answer

The ethical objectivist can respond to the motivational argument by arguing both that moral judgments alone aren't able to motivate us (A) and that beliefs alone are able to motivate us (B). This approach allows them to maintain that moral facts can exist independently of our motivational states, addressing the challenge posed by the argument that ethical objectivism fails because moral judgments cannot motivate without an accompanying desire.

Question 20

Occam's razor tells us to

Accepted Answer

Occam's razor is a principle that suggests that the simplest explanation for a phenomenon is often the best one. This means that we should avoid introducing unnecessary or overly complicated hypotheses, and instead choose the explanation that requires the fewest assumptions (i.e., entities). Therefore, the best choice is B, which states that we should never multiply entities beyond necessity.

Quiz 21: Eleven Arguments Against Moral Objectivity