Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A liberal realist answer to debunking skeptics: the empirical case for realism

  • Published:
Philosophical Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Debunking skeptics claim that our moral beliefs are formed by processes unsuited to identifying objective facts, such as emotions inculcated by our genes and culture; therefore, they say, even if there are objective moral facts, we probably don’t know them. I argue that the debunking skeptics cannot explain the pervasive trend toward liberalization of values over human history, and that the best explanation is the realist’s: humanity is becoming increasingly liberal because liberalism is the objectively correct moral stance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Hume (1975, p. 289; 1992, p. 471), emphasis in original.

  2. See for example, Plato (1977).

  3. Benedict (1934).

  4. Dawkins (1989, ch. 12), Wright (1995, ch. 10), Ruse (1998, pp. 218–222).

  5. Haidt (2001).

  6. Alford et al. (2005, p. 162). “Political orientation” refers to a composite of responses to questions about various political controversies. Genetically identical twins are much more similar in political orientation than are fraternal twins raised in the same home. Because political beliefs depend on moral beliefs (Graham et al. 2009), this suggests that moral beliefs reflect substantial genetic influences.

  7. See Tye (2008). A related view is that desires are evaluative representations; see Oddie (2005). The same points apply to the latter view as to the view about emotions.

  8. Street (2006, pp. 129–131). For a reply to this sort of argument, see Huemer (2005, pp. 218–219).

  9. On moral perception, see McGrath (2004), Moore (1992, p. 2517). On explanation, see Sturgeon (1985), Railton (1998). For objections to these views, see Huemer (2005, section 4.4).

  10. Reid (1983, pp. 319–323), Butler (1964). This view appears to be Street’s (2006) main target, though she does not name it as such.

  11. There is much more to say about these views, but it is beyond the scope of this paper to address them. In the interests of space, I assume that we are comparing anti-realism to rationalist intuitionism.

  12. Prichard (1957, pp. 7–8), Ross (1988, pp. 29–30), Huemer (2005, pp. 99–102, 215–216).

  13. This view requires qualification to be plausible; no one holds that all moral knowledge is a priori. For example, one might plausibly hold that the knowledge that pain is bad is a priori, but the knowledge that Hitler was evil is obviously not a priori since it depends upon empirical beliefs about Hitler’s actions and motives. One might plausibly hold that all fundamental moral knowledge is a priori, or something in this neighborhood (where fundamental moral knowledge might be characterized as moral knowledge that does not depend upon other moral knowledge, or as moral knowledge that does not depend upon non-moral knowledge). Hereafter, I shall take this qualification as read.

  14. Quine (1951).

  15. Ayer (1952), Mackie (1977, pp. 38–40).

  16. For defense of this assumption, see Bealer (1992), BonJour (1998).

  17. Cf. Jamieson’s (2002, ch. 1) and Singer’s (2011, pp. 114–117) discussions of moral progress.

  18. Pinker (2011).

  19. Keeley (1996, pp. 196).

  20. Bowles (2009, p. 1295), Keeley (1996, p. 197). The two “Central California” entries refer to distinct sites in central California.

  21. For discussion of a variety of possible factors, see Pinker (2011).

  22. For discussion, see Mueller (2004), Huemer (2013).

  23. Nietzsche (2003), part 1, section 10, p. 35 (originally published 1883–1885); Adams (1891, p. 277) (discussing the war of 1812 and explaining the advantages of war over embargo); Zola quoted in Joll and Martel (2007, p. 275).

  24. Spierenburg (2008, pp. 3–4), United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2013).

  25. On the acceptance of killing in primitive societies, see Oesterdiekhoff (2011, pp. 169–170); on honor-motivated killings in medieval Europe, see Spierenburg (2008, pp. 7–8).

  26. Library of Congress (2011).

  27. Pinker (2011, p. 149).

  28. From a fifteenth century print, reproduced in Held (1987, p. 47).

  29. Bradley and Cartledge (2011), Eltis and Engerman (2011).

  30. Aristotle (1941, Politics I, 1255b 37–40).

  31. Exodus 21: 20–21.

  32. Data source: Wikipedia (2014a).

  33. Data source: Wikipedia (2014b). Dates used are the first year women could vote in any election in a given country.

  34. For an account of the American civil rights movement, see Williams (1987).

  35. Data source: Center for Systemic Peace (2011). I count as democracies all countries with scores of 6 or higher on the polity 2 variable in the Polity IV dataset. Note that the dataset includes only countries with populations of at least 500,000, and data are sparse before 1900.

  36. For an account of the Indian independence movement, see Sarkar (1988).

  37. For similar observations, see Byrne (2009, pp. 123–124).

  38. Singer (2011, p. 116). For a sympathetic discussion, see Jamieson (2002, pp. 6–9).

  39. Concerns of this sort are raised by Harman (1977, pp. 6–9) and Street (2006, pp. 129–131).

  40. Mackie (1977, pp. 36–38).

  41. Lindberg (1992, p. 9).

  42. Duane (1998, p. 16).

  43. Lindberg (1992, pp. 116–117, 332–333).

  44. For an evolutionary explanation, see Dawkins (1989, ch. 9).

  45. Leviticus 20:10; Quran 4:15; Sahih Bukhari 83:37.

  46. Locke (1990, p. 64).

  47. For a similar view of cultural moral evolution, see Byrne (2009, p. 131).

  48. For accounts of the nature of explanation, see Hempel (1965), Huemer (2009, section 3). The explanation offered here satisfies the former account, where (1) and (4) are understood as the relevant lawlike generalizations. It also satisfies the latter account, since it cites facts explanatorily prior to the abolition of slavery which raised the probability that slavery would be abolished. The relevant notion of probability here is logical, not physical.

  49. Shafer-Landau (2012, p. 30) argues similarly.

  50. I would like to thank Anthony Kelley, Spencer Case, and an anonymous reviewer for this journal for helpful comments on the manuscript.

References

  • Adams, H. (1891). History of the United States of America during the second administration of Thomas Jefferson (Vol. 2). London: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alford, J. R., Funk, C. L., & Hibbing, J. R. (2005). Are political orientations genetically transmitted? American Political Science Review, 99, 153–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle. (1941). The basic works of Aristotle (Ed. Richard McKeon). New York: Random House.

  • Ayer, A. J. (1952). Language, truth, and logic. New York: Dover.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bealer, G. (1992). The incoherence of empiricism. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 66(supplement), 99–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benedict, R. (1934). Anthropology and the abnormal. Journal of General Psychology, 10, 59–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BonJour, L. (1998). In defense of pure reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowles, S. (2009). Did warfare among ancestral hunter-gatherers affect the evolution of human social behaviors? Science, 324, 1293–1298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, K., & Cartledge, P. (Eds.). (2011). The Cambridge world history of slavery (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. ([1729] 1964). Butler’s sermons and dissertation on virtue. London: G. Bell & Sons.

  • Byrne, P. (2009). Is morality undercut by evolutionary theory? Philo, 12, 116–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Center for Systemic Peace. (2011). “Polity IV annual time-series 1800–2010” (dataset from Polity IV project). http://www.systemicpeace.org/inscr/inscr.htm. Accessed January 24, 2012.

  • Dawkins, R. (1989). The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duane, O. B. (1998). Native American myths and legends. London: Brockhampton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eltis, D., & Engerman, S. L. (2011). The Cambridge world history of slavery (Vol. 3). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029–1046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harman, G. (1977). The nature of morality: An introduction to ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Held, R. (1987). Inquisition: A bilingual guide to the exhibition of torture instruments from the middle ages to the industrial era presented in various European cities. Florence: Dorset Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hempel, C. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huemer, M. (2005). Ethical intuitionism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Huemer, M. (2009). Explanationist aid for the theory of inductive logic. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 60, 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huemer, M. (2013). “The Evolution of Values”, public lecture, TEDx Denver, June 15. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrZ2DJzbYYo. Accessed March 22, 2014.

  • Hume, D. ([1739] 1992). Treatise of human nature. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus. Reprint.

  • Hume, D. ([1751] 1975). Enquiry concerning the principles of morals. In Nidditch, P. H. (Ed.), Enquiries concerning human understanding and concerning the principles of morals. Oxford: Clarendon.

  • Jamieson, D. (2002). Morality’s progress: Essays on humans, other animals, and the rest of nature. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joll, J., & Martel, G. (2007). Origins of the first world war (3rd ed.). New York: Pearson Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeley, L. (1996). War before civilization: The myth of the peaceful savage. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Library of Congress. (2011). Today in history: July 11. http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/jul11.html. Accessed March 21, 2014.

  • Lindberg, D. C. (1992). The beginnings of Western science: The European scientific tradition in philosophical, religious, and institutional context, 600 BC to AD 1450. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Locke, J. ([1689] 1990). A letter concerning toleration. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.

  • Mackie, J. L. (1977). Ethics: Inventing right and wrong. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, S. (2004). Moral knowledge by perception. In J. Hawthorne (Ed.), Philosophical perspectives 18: Ethics (pp. 209–228). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M. S. (1992). Moral reality revisited. Michigan Law Review, 90, 2424–2533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, J. E. (2004). The remnants of war. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nietzsche, F. (2003). Thus Spake Zarathustra: A book for all and none (W. Thomas, Trans.). New York: Algora Publishing.

  • Oddie, G. (2005). Value, reality, and desire. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Oesterdiekhoff, G. (2011). The steps of man toward civilization. Norderstedt, Germany: Books on Demand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinker, S. (2011). The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. New York: Viking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plato. (1977). Symposium. In S. Buchanan (Ed.), The portable Plato (pp. 121–187). New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prichard, H. A. (1957). Moral obligation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine, W. V. (1951). Two dogmas of empiricism. Philosophical Review, 60, 20–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Railton, P. (1998). Moral explanation and moral objectivity. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 58, 175–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reid, T. (1983). Inquiry and essays (Ed. R. Beanblossom and K. Lehrer). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.

  • Ross, W. D. ([1930] 1988). The right and the good. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett. Reprint.

  • Ruse, M. (1998). Taking Darwin seriously. Amherst, NY: Prometheus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar, S. (1988). Modern India 1885–1947. New York: Saint Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shafer-Landau, R. (2012). Evolutionary debunking, moral realism and moral knowledge. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy, 7, 1–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P. (2011). The expanding circle: Ethics, evolution, and moral progress. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spierenburg, P. (2008). A history of murder: Personal violence in Europe from the middle ages to the present. Malden, MA: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Street, S. (2006). A Darwinian dilemma for realist theories of value. Philosophical Studies, 127, 109–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sturgeon, N. (1985). Moral explanations. In D. Copp & D. Zimmerman (Eds.), Morality, reason and truth. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tye, M. (2008). The experience of emotion: An intentionalist theory. Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 1, 25–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2013). Intentional homicide, count and rate per 100,000 Population (1995–2011). www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/crime/Homicide_statistics2013.xls. Accessed March 22, 2014.

  • Wikipedia. (2014a). Abolition of slavery timeline. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline. Accessed March 21, 2014.

  • Wikipedia. (2014b). Women’s suffrage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women’s_suffrage. Accessed March 21, 2014.

  • Williams, J. (1987). Eyes on the prize. New York: Viking Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, R. (1995). The moral animal. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Philosophy Department, CB 232, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, 80309-0232, USA

    Michael Huemer

Authors
  1. Michael Huemer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Huemer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Huemer, M. A liberal realist answer to debunking skeptics: the empirical case for realism. Philos Stud 173, 1983–2010 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-015-0588-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-015-0588-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation