Social Sciences Essay: Moral Anti-realism

Moral Anti-realism
Name
Institution / Affiliation
Moral anti-realism
Introduction
Over the years, countless debates in philosophy revolve around moral realism versus anti-realism. For this reason, an individual anywhere can be pardoned for supposing that somebody understands the importance and credibility of the two variables. However, there certainly exist extensive variations between the two variables sizeable enough to inspire philosophical commitments. Still, once the two variables are approached openly, the division may prove extremely difficult to distinguish (Horn, 2020). In reality, the aspects that cause misunderstanding may be numerous non-equivalent ways of drawing justification, some of which may be suited to certain subject areas than others—as such, imagining that there is a uniform theory that applies to all cases is irrational judgment.
Difference between moral realism and anti-realism
Moral realism recognizes that ethical facts exist, with some moral realities being true while others being erroneous. For instance, if an individual holds a realistic position regarding a moral statement, the person believes that the statement exists, whether true or false. On the other hand, moral anti-realism debunks the existence of moral facts and rather allows the individual to decide their rightness or wrongness. That is to mean, there are no moral statements that are right or wrong.
Argument for moral anti-realism
Thus said, I consider anti-realism theory more plausible as moral statements do not have expressive content, thus leaving any room for truth makers. For instance, different communities hold different views on ethical statements, which seems impossible to agree with. For instance, while some cultures highly devalue female genital mutilation, other societies hold different views on these values. Therefore, if diverse individuals, societies, and cultures disagree about moral statements that seem impossib...