Responding to a DM here for all: 'Why is anti-realism on the cognitivist side instead of the non-cognitivist side?' Technically it should be on both. Non-cognitivists are all anti-realists too (as morality does not exist objectively). The difference is that cognitivist anti-realists believe morality CAN still be true or false subjectively. That is what is important here. Whereas, non-cognitivist anti-realists believe morality is subjective and cannot be true or false (either subjectively or objectively). All non-cognitivists are anti-realists but only some cognitivists are. Thus, in my view, it is more important to include on the cognitivist side. Hope that helps anyone else who was wondering. Some A Level text books pair up non-cognitivism and anti-realism to keep things simple.
I’ve just discovered your channel. Very impressed with the range of content and arrangement of topics. Great introduction for someone that enjoys popular books on these subjects (e.g Moral Landscape) but had no previous philosophy training. If I could offer one suggestion, it would be to give a couple extra seconds gap to allow the viewer to pause at each step of the quiz. I found myself struggling to do so before the answer started appearing, particularly for the “what am I” quiz at the end of this video.
The only issue I have with this schema, is the use of objective is applied too loosely. You should stick to the mind-independent classical definition of it. That way you avoid weird oxymorons like describing gut feelings as objective. I also don't like categorising true or false talk as the only meaningful talk, that's just false on its face. Obviously non propositional statements can be meaningful.
I believe that we can discover what is reasonably good by asking people. Most people want to avoid pain. And if we can agree that it is possible you will one day encounter pain then we ought to help other people avoid pain. This would be realist but objective. Even though I feel this is still pretty subjective. Is that correct?
This is a helpful outline of the ethical positions, however I am puzzled by your characterisation of what you call Natural Moral Law (which you contrast to empirical observation - or science I presume). Shouldn't Natural Moral Law appear along side 'God' and thus be on the anti-realist side? Just like 'God', Natural Moral Law gets to decide what is good or bad and would also be subject to the Euthyphro dilemma. If the function of Natural Moral Law is to recognise what is morally good or bad, then we have to look elsewhere for the basis of the ethics. Let me admit that this may be my confusion because I find it hard to understand Natural Moral Law. I am presuming that Natural Moral Law has nothing to do with scientific realism, which in your chart would be empirical observation. Or is there a separate term for those who would try to derive or refute ethical conclusions on the basis of facts of science?
