Quasi Realism (Metaethics)

Join George and John as they discuss and debate different Philosophical ideas, today they will be looking into Quasi Realism.

As the Cognitivists and the Non Cognitivists debate which is the best approach towards moral language, Quasi Realism attempts to find a resolution. By claiming that Moral language is fundamentally Non Cognitive, however when we express a moral statement we project this onto the world as though it is Cognitive, morality turns into a sort of fake realism.

Is this the best Metaethical approach to moral language, and does this also solve the Realism vs Anti Realism debate? Watch as George and John critically assess.

The script to this video is part of the Metaethics eBook, available on Amazon:

#quasirealism #metaethics #philosophy #simonblackburn

[buicktothemoon]

fascinating how analytic ideas like this split perfectly across Lacan's concept of the Imaginary and the Symbolic. Imaginary being the propensity to project meaning onto things. He called it 'truthiness'.

[BobHowler]

When you mention colour (as you say "for want of a better example") you could mention things like disgust. When I see something rotting, I feel revulsion. It's how I feel about the rotting thing in front of me (and there's good reasons to keep away from it). But I don't say "I feel disgusted" when I see it. I say "that's disgusting" as if the object itself contains some special feature that has the power to cause a sense of revulsion and sickness in people just by us looking at it. However, that's just a projection of feeling into the object.

[clauderains]

I jump on youtube for a bit of light procrastination, and what do I find but a video that is on my thesis topic. It'd be hilarious if next week's episode is on Habermas' theory of communicative action and discourse ethics.

[PhilosophyVibe]

The script to this video is part of the Philosophy Vibe Metaethics eBook, available on amazon:

[cutemouse]

So good i wish i was good at discussing as you guys

[kimmyswan]

Are emotions real? I mean, we can physically observe them in the brain - even if we experience and react to them differently.

[neetbucks]

great video, you guys are gonna be huge

[cloudoftime]

What non-cognitivist attempts to claim objective moral facts? Without offering an example of someone who would make this claim, the ending contention of this video is just a strawman of the position. For clarity, here is a quote from the SEP article on Moral Anti-Realism:

"Although I have here presented Blackburn’s quasi-realism as a potential avenue for the noncognitivist to pursue, it should be noted that Blackburn himself eschews the label “noncognitivism” to describe the position he defends (Blackburn 1996); his preferred term is “projectivism.”

[tehnik]

6:24 moral subjectivism is cognitivist?

[jonhansen]

humans exist so emotions exist and so morals exist. why do things that arent strictly solid matter not exist?

[dreamersque]

I was just trying to find a video on making bread...yes, at 3am

[nasertizhoosh]

I have a question when you say cognitivism in metaethics; does it imply the same meaning as Nativism and non-cognitivism as empiricism?
Thank you in advance

[BiDrd]

A problem with quasi realism is that it in itself admits that a person cannot live consistent with it's conclusion, because to live with a genuine belief in our moral decisions or actions treats morality as objectively real, and if it is not objectively real, then this implies delusion by definition.

If one is going to conclude that "quasi realism" is the true description of morality, then to live with genuine belief in "fake morals" is a delusion by definition. It is to live with a genuine belief and something that doesn't exist, and we know that we have genuine belief towards our moral actions or judgments through our acting on them or fighting to uphold them. When we conclude that we should live our lives this way and then actually carry that out, we are showing genuine belief in an idea we made up in our minds, which is the definition of a delusion if it is not objectively true. Therefore, to act on these delusions would not be rational, even if our emotions desire to follow after these "quasi" morals.

Therefore, the rational conclusion would be to "break from the illusion" and live indifferent lives with no moral opinions whatsoever. To live life by the illusion would be a delusion and therefore irrational, and a person would make that decision willingly which would be intellectual suicide, and that would mean his position is not intellectually based, it is emotionally based while claiming to be intellectually based.

However, I suspect that those who conclude "quasi realism" will not reject morality altogether but will consciously live through a delusion that they are consciously are aware is a delusion, which would not be rational, and therefore a person would live *contradictory to his own conclusion of "quasi realism", which undermines his position.*

He points out his observation, but then cannot live as though it is true, even being consciously aware of it, but he makes the decision not to resist his emotions even though he is able to do so, just as a person who has money that he can blow on all of his desires is able to refrain and save his money. This means that if the person makes the decision to act on his emotions through his moral judgments, then he's making that decision willingly and is not being forced to live in the delusion but is choosing willingly to live in that delusion, and that would make him inconsistent *intellectually* with his own conclusion.

This is why Objective Morality is the best explanation and the most consistent position a person can have.

Objective morality *does not* mean subjective morality doesn't exist, because clearly people do at times disagree, and I don't not think anyone who claims that objective moral exists denies that people disagree, so to state that objective morality exists is not to say that subjective morality doesn't exist, and that means this is not an either/or issue. Instead, the conclusion would be that morality is *BOTH* Objective and Subjective.

Logic is not either subjective or objective, logic is BOTH, because while there are objective facts that point to something being logical or illogical, not everyone agrees logically, so to conclude that logic is purely subjective simply because people disagree is incorrect.

Also, as this channel pointed out in a different video, if a person can point to the disagreement and use that as evidence for subjective morality, then one can also point at times where people agree morally as evidence for objective morality.

If human minds are not the source of morality because morality is objective, this also can explain why we disagree, because we are not the source of it and therefore do not have perfect knowledge. However, we do have certain intuitions that can recognize it at times even though it cannot be explained through language, just as the color green cannot be explained through language but through experience, as this channel has said in the past.

Therefore, there is simply an intuition that people have that is innate although one does not have perfect knowledge, but are at times able to identify it.

This best explains morality.

As a result, this would imply a moral law exists beyond the human mind, implying a Moral Law Giver, God.

[nickpharo]

Jesus Christ talk about emotionless passionless You need to speak with conviction man!!! CONVICTION!!!!