Philosophy 51 (195):5-20 (1976)

If I say “we are now living in England” or “grass is green in summer’ or ‘the cat is on the mat’ what I say will normally be true or false—the statements are true if they correctly report how things are, or correspond to the facts; and if they do not do these things, they are false. Such a statement will only fail to have a truth-value if its referring expressions fail to refer ; or if the statement lies on the border between truth and falsity so that it is as true to say that the statement is true as to say that it is false. Are moral judgments normally true or false in the way in which the above statements are true or false? I will term the view that they are objectivism and the view that they are not subjectivism. The objectivist maintains that it is as much a fact about an action that it is right or wrong as that it causes pain or takes a long time to perform. The subjectivist maintains that saying than an action is right or wrong is not stating a fact about it but merely expressing approval of it or commending it or doing some such similar thing. I wish in this paper, first, to show that all arguments for subjectivism manifestly fail, and secondly to produce a strong argument for objectivism. But, to start with, some preliminaries.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1017/S0031819100019975
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 69,177
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

How is Moral Disagreement a Problem for Realism?David Enoch - 2009 - The Journal of Ethics 13 (1):15-50.
Blackburn’s Problem: On Its Not Insignificant Residue.Jordan Howard Sobel - 2001 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 62 (2):361-383.
Kant, Morality, and Hell.James Edwin Mahon - 2015 - In Robert Arp & Ben McCraw (eds.), The Concept of Hell. Palgrave-Macmillan. pp. 113-126.
Does Theism Need a Theodicy?Richard Swinburne - 1988 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 18 (2):287-311.
The Revolutions in English Philosophy and Philosophy of Education.Peter Gilroy - 2013 - Educational Philosophy and Theory 45 (2):202-218.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Variations on the Liar's Paradox.Joseph Agassi - 1964 - Studia Logica 15 (1):237-238.
The Logic Of Lying.Moses Òkè - 2006 - Sorites 17:27-30.
Moral Cognitivism Vs. Non-Cognitivism.Mark van Roojen - 2013 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2013 (1):1-88.
Gibt es Moralische Wahrheiten?Peter Baumann - 2001 - In Achim Stephan & Klaus Peter Rippe (eds.), Ethik ohne Dogmen. Aufsätze für Günther Patzig. mentis. pp. 238-255.
Is It All Relative?Stephen Law - 2002 - Think 1 (2):69-82.
The Revenge of the Liar: New Essays on the Paradox.J. C. Beall (ed.) - 2007 - Oxford, England: Oxford University Press UK.
The Impossibility of Miracles.Nicholas Everitt - 1987 - Religious Studies 23 (3):347 - 349.
Revenge of the Liar: New Essays on the Paradox.J. C. Beall (ed.) - 2007 - Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Truth-Bearers or Truth-Makers?Laura Perini - 2012 - Spontaneous Generations 6 (1):142-147.


Added to PP index

Total views
92 ( #125,510 of 2,499,656 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #169,778 of 2,499,656 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes