45a72cad_e_for_Benj_Hellie___PhilPapers__Comments
[Question] Meta-ethics: moral realism or moral anti-realism? [Answer] The question is too unclear to answer [Comments] 
I am not sure what is meant by 'moral' here. I'm inclined to think that in one sense, morality is something like subjectively impartial rationality: one does the moral thing just if, adopting the perspective of the golden rule and generalizing to all subjects, one does the rational thing. That seems like something we could be 'realists' about. The golden rule can also be applied less inclusively: not to all subjects but to one's nears and dears. This less demanding standard is also a form of morality. Here what is morally binding on one differs from person to person. Whether this is compatible with realism depends on what is meant by 'realism'. Another pole of use takes 'morality' as rather more like etiquette. That seems like something we shouldn't be realists about in any plausible sense of 'realism'.
Profile for Benj Hellie - PhilPapers
Comments