Even though moral realism is false, we have to act as if it is true. Otherwise, legislatures and judges can never be wrong, or perhaps democratic majorities can never be wrong. If we want to be able to criticize judgements about morality or justice, we need a standard to measure them by. Since moral realism is false, the account of how this can happen might be a bit complicated. But I would expect that a person who has not reflected on it much would think that it was not impossible for legislators to be unjust, and that while people might change their minds about what is just, or get confused about it, they typically think that what is just doesn’t change. So without further complications, that sounds like moral realism. I could be wrong.
When you say act as if it were true what do you mean? How would we act any differently if it were not true? I am a moral antirealist and I don't act like realism is true. I don't think judges are legislators need to act like it's true either. One can impose laws and judge people according to those laws without supposing that those laws reflect stance independent moral facts. People can make mistakes relative to one or another standard. This isn't an issue for antirealism.
And ironically, moral realists have to act as if moral realism is false. They have to decide what they think is just, come up with a conjectural interpretation. No one has to interpret the gravitational constant for it to work.
I mean, they act as if justice is independent of people's stance, a fact of the matter that would be true no matter what people do or think, like the coefficient of gravity.
Has the Supreme Court or congress ever made a mistake? By what standard would we decide? When someone says “that is unjust” they are acting like there is a fact of the matter that is not dependent on what people think. They are acting like moral realism is true.
Even though moral realism is false, we have to act as if it is true. Otherwise, legislatures and judges can never be wrong, or perhaps democratic majorities can never be wrong. If we want to be able to criticize judgements about morality or justice, we need a standard to measure them by. Since moral realism is false, the account of how this can happen might be a bit complicated. But I would expect that a person who has not reflected on it much would think that it was not impossible for legislators to be unjust, and that while people might change their minds about what is just, or get confused about it, they typically think that what is just doesn’t change. So without further complications, that sounds like moral realism. I could be wrong.
When you say act as if it were true what do you mean? How would we act any differently if it were not true? I am a moral antirealist and I don't act like realism is true. I don't think judges are legislators need to act like it's true either. One can impose laws and judge people according to those laws without supposing that those laws reflect stance independent moral facts. People can make mistakes relative to one or another standard. This isn't an issue for antirealism.
And ironically, moral realists have to act as if moral realism is false. They have to decide what they think is just, come up with a conjectural interpretation. No one has to interpret the gravitational constant for it to work.
I mean, they act as if justice is independent of people's stance, a fact of the matter that would be true no matter what people do or think, like the coefficient of gravity.
Has the Supreme Court or congress ever made a mistake? By what standard would we decide? When someone says “that is unjust” they are acting like there is a fact of the matter that is not dependent on what people think. They are acting like moral realism is true.