Ethics

Date  (This dialogue follows a conversation between Rhea, the moral realist, and Ann, the moral antirealist and it details the differences between the two positions)

Rhea  Capital punishment should be abolished in all the states and in the whole world. It is just so wrong to subject human beings to such torture.

Ann You state that as a fact. Why would you deem it as being wrong

Rhea What Are you actually implying that you support the killing of fellow human beings

Ann I am not purporting any such thing. I am just saying that you need to justify terming any act as being right or wrong, good or bad etc. I guess what I am asking is what facts are you basing your judgment on

Rhea  Taking another mans life is wrong from whatever angle you look at it. Life is given to us by God, therefore only he has the right to take it away.

Ann   Should I then take it that you are basing your judgment on the fact that only God has the right to take away life If so, an atheist or a person who pleads ignorance to the knowledge of God would not be bound by the moral facts you claim to base your judgment on. He is then free, I suppose, to disagree with your judgment.

Rhea  I see your point.

Ann   It then follows that basing your judgment on inconclusive inaccurate moral facts will lead to the whole moral theory and practice being false. In the case of the atheist, there is no God so if right or wrong depended on God then nothing in his worldview is essentially right or wrong.
Rhea To put it plainly, what is right should have the effect of maximizing the happiness of all involved. It should also conform to the standards upheld by a majority of people.

Ann Think with me. Imagine a sadist who typically derives pleasure from hurting people. Such a person would see nothing wrong in approving death penalties. Seeing people hurt is after all his source of pleasure. Dont you think that causes a conflict

Rhea  It does but that is not a position that is upheld by a majority of people. It is difficult to point out the moral facts that I base my judgment upon but it just feels wrong to approve of capital punishment. I am a moral realist after all .What exactly is your position on the issue
Ann I dont support capital punishment. What I am saying is that the moral facts you seem to be operating from are questionable and ambiguous. Moral realists are essentially divided. They term something as wrong but based on totally different moral facts. One will believe it to be wrong because of religious convictions, another because it concurs with his feelings and yet another because it agrees with his experiences.

Rhea  But doesnt the end justify the mean It is a fact that moral realism is common practice in the world today. Whatever divide of anti-realism you belong to, either error-theorist or non-cognitivist, you cannot criticize moral theory or practice. You said it yourself you dont support capital punishment.

Ann I dont but what I am saying is that your thought carries no cognitive content and thus cannot therefore claim to represent any moral fact on which your argument is based. I think you have the burden to prove that what you claim is actually based on moral facts that are both empirical and justifiable.

Rhea  There are really no real differences between us. Simply because you reject the existence of moral facts on which some moral arguments are based should not lead you to criticize moral theory and practice. Moral theory helps to control the behavior of human beings.

Ann No, moral theory is an effort by humans to objectify their tastes and preferences and force others to accommodate our wishes. It keeps humans docile and caged in an effort to manage them.