0

This question got me thinking:

What is the difference between the Superman and the Ultimateman?

As I understand it, moral anti-realism is the thesis that there are no moral facts outside the individual, ones that are the case independent of the individual and its ideas.

Has anyone claimed that Nietzsche is not an anti-realist about moral disagreement?

I think the being a realist about e.g. moral disagreement (so not moral facts) is needed to retain the sense that there are values that hold independent of our state of mind. Without it, how can one even claim that someone is a good person or some life is good?

  • "An anti-realist about moral disagreement: as surely that would be needed to retain the sense that there are values hold independent of our state of mind?" What does "that" refer to? Anti-realism is needed for independent values? Or is it independent values needed for moral disagreements? Or is it "a good person or life is a quality that one can claim is or isn't instantiated" needed for...? The second paragraph is completely unintelligible, I suggest rewriting it from scratch. – Conifold Feb 20 at 23:25
  • 'that' refers to being an "anti-realist about moral disagreement" @Conifold ?? the phrase just before the 'that'... i do not understand what is difficult about the sentence in question, so i'll hold fire on editing the 2nd paragraph for a while – user35983 Feb 21 at 0:18
  • 1
    In some interpretations, for N, the closest thing to a moral fact is a firm aesthetic judgement. If morality is really aesthetic, why would there be values independent of our state of mind? Aesthetic judgments are not. So I would say that although N is a realist about moral disagreement, he does not hold a view of morality independent of the state of mind. – jobermark Feb 21 at 2:38
  • 1
    Much as it would pain him to hear it... I think he was an idealist (as in political idealism) in many ways. He liked to think.of himself as someone who could stare unflinchingly.into the eternal void... but his conclusions from.doung that were often divorced from hum.drum everyday.reality. I share his opinion that humans are essentially crap. But I find his inability to offer practical suggestions for improvement (other than waiting for.it to sort itself out) a bit weak. And so it is with his morality. Nihilists still have to get on with others and muddle through don't they? – Richard Feb 21 at 2:55
  • 1
    This is much better, but it is still very puzzling. What would "anti-realist about moral disagreement" as opposed to "about moral facts" look like? If we have "values that hold independent of our state of mind" then we are realists about moral facts/values already. And moral disagreement is one of those things where what you see is what you get, and there is plenty of it. Also, one need not "claim" to talk about "good persons". As Wittgenstein pointed out, vocalizations do not need to pack any claims underneath:"we also make gestures to stop our dog, e.g. when he behaves as we do not wish." – Conifold Feb 21 at 19:15

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy