Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Universality in Expressivism
chemical weaponry against civilians is universally bad. In a broader sense, I am trying to show
that anti-realist theories, namely Expressivism, have the capacity to generate universal moral
claims.
on children is, one must first understand the Realist response. Moral Realism is a theory that is
based on the following two theses: morality is objective, and some of the moral beliefs that
people hold are true. Since some of the claims are truth evaluable, Realists contend that moral
claims contain moral properties. These properties determine what is right from wrong. Realists
contend that these properties are universal, meaning that they exist out in the universe like other
natural properties. Additionally, these properties are normative, meaning that the property
compels us to act a certain way. For example, in the case of deployment of chemical weaponry, a
Moral Realist only needs to state that there is a moral property which states that using chemical
they believe that moral properties and judgments originate from the human psyche. This leaves
Anti-Realists with an interesting conundrum, as they have to explain the apparent universality of
many moral concepts. For example, the vast majority of people agree that murder is categorically
bad, but under the basic Anti-Realist framework, it’s not easy to back up that claim.
Expressivism is the version of Anti-Realism that I will use in order to exhibit the
statements of fact, are simply expressions of one’s mental state. More specifically, according to
Gibbard, moral claims are statements of one’s plan. Gibbard’s definition of the word “plan” is
different from the colloquial definition that most people use. Gibbard defines planning as
thinking ahead of hypotheticals and devising our response to them, and then, when we are faced
with the situation we have previously thought of, we take the action we have thought of for the
situation. In the case of moral judgements, we think of moral situations, such as whether or not
murder is moral, and the vast majority of people reach the conclusion that one ought not murder.
Gibbard believes that we have acquired the ability to constantly make plans and prepare for
run into, both consciously and subconsciously. This includes most basic moral dilemmas, such as
The question still remains, how does the Expressivist view make a universal moral claim?
The Expressivist idea for a universal moral claim is rooted in the Gibbard’s concept of the plan.
When we make moral plans, such as one ought not use chemical weaponry on your own citizens,
you are making that plan not only from your own circumstance, but you are assuming it for the
circumstances of all moral agents. You are asserting that even if you were in Bashar al-Assad’s
shoes, you would not deploy chemical weaponry on your own citizens.
What are you supposed to do if somebody disagrees with your moral claim? Gibbard’s response
is simple, not everybody who disagrees with you is correct. Gibbard illustrates this with the
example of Brandt’s Hopi. Gibbard’s teacher, Brandt, while on an expedition to ascertain the
moral beliefs of different cultures, encountered a tribe of Hopi. This tribe played a game called
chicken pull. The game consisted of burying a chicken up to its neck in the ground, and then
getting on a horse and galloping past the chicken, while simultaneously pulling the chicken out
of the ground. This inevitably results in death or extreme pain for the chicken. When making
plans, if one takes the pain of the chicken into account, while also accounting for everybody’s
circumstances, one would arrive at the plan that one ought not play chicken pull. Even when
accounting for the Hopi’s culture of playing chicken pull, if one takes the pain of the chicken
into account, in all cases one ought not play chicken pull. However, the Hopi argument for
playing chicken pull is coherent, meaning that the argument is logically sound, and none of the
premises contradict one another. They simply do not take the pain of the chicken into account,
and therefore arrive at the plan that it is permissible to play chicken pull. Since both arguments
are coherent, how are we to judge right and wrong between them?
Gibbard counters this with the example of Wilberforce, a man who had a coherent
argument for why dinosaurs don’t exist. Despite the argument being coherent, dinosaurs
obviously did exist, so the conclusion that is drawn from this is that coherent arguments are not
grounded in fact. This means that fundamental coherent disagreement should not undermine
mind.
(3) These states of mind are defined as plans, which are caused by humans planning