A while back I listened to an episode of Sean Carroll's podcast Mindscape called On Morality and Rationality. I am fascinated by moral philosophy, and if you have two hours to spare and have the slightest interest in the topic, I encourage you to listen to this episode.
In his book The Big Picture, he writes a bit about it as well:
Is "moral constructivism" something going among philosophers? I have never encountered the term before, and I am at least well-versed enough to have heard of emotivism, error theory, utilitarianism, deontology, and much of the rest. Perhaps more importantly, is it a sensible approach? Is Carroll correct?
I suppose the main issue of meta-ethics is moral realism versus moral antirealism (or objective morality versus subjective morality), but once you dig down, there are apparently so many varieties beyond the big divide.
What does it mean to be a good person? To act ethically and morally in the world? In the old days we might appeal to the instructions we get from God, but a modern naturalist has to look elsewhere. Today I do a rare solo podcast, where I talk about my personal views on morality, a variety of “constructivism” according to which human beings construct their ethical stances starting from basic impulses, logical reasoning, and communicating with others.
In his book The Big Picture, he writes a bit about it as well:
The idea that moral guidelines are things invented by human beings based on their subjective judgments and beliefs, rather than being grounded in anything external, is known as moral constructivism. (When I say “human beings” in this context, feel free to substitute “conscious creatures.” I’m not trying to discriminate against animals, aliens, or hypothetical artificial intelligences.) Constructivism is a bit different from “relativism.” A moral relativist thinks that morality is grounded in the practices of particular cultures or individuals, and therefore cannot be judged from outside. Relativism is sometimes derided as an overly quietist stance—it doesn’t permit legitimate critique of one system by another.
A moral constructivist, by contrast, acknowledges that morality originates in individuals and societies, but accepts that those individuals and societies will treat the resulting set of beliefs as “right,” and will judge others accordingly. Moral constructivists have no qualms about telling other people that they’re doing the wrong thing. Furthermore, the fact that morals are constructed doesn’t mean that they are arbitrary. Ethical systems are invented by human beings, but we can all have productive conversations about how they could be improved, just as we do with all sorts of things that human beings put together.
Is "moral constructivism" something going among philosophers? I have never encountered the term before, and I am at least well-versed enough to have heard of emotivism, error theory, utilitarianism, deontology, and much of the rest. Perhaps more importantly, is it a sensible approach? Is Carroll correct?
I suppose the main issue of meta-ethics is moral realism versus moral antirealism (or objective morality versus subjective morality), but once you dig down, there are apparently so many varieties beyond the big divide.