Is morality objective? · Quiz question 23/35
Disagreement in Belief vs. Disagreement in Attitude
Two people think it through carefully and reach opposite conclusions on euthanasia. Is one of them wrong? Stevenson's "disagreement in attitude" and the peer disagreement debate.
One person says "euthanasia is wrong", another says "euthanasia is okay". Both thought it through carefully.
It's not that one of them is wrong — they just have different attitudes.
In Ethics and Language (1944), Charles Stevenson split disagreement into two kinds: disagreement in belief (about facts) and disagreement in attitude (about what we want or approve of). He thought the core of moral disagreement is disagreement in attitude — exactly what this question's last line says. Epistemologists today also argue a lot about what "peer disagreement" implies.
Euthanasia is a classic case where disagreement won't budge. In 1975 James Rachels sparked a huge debate by arguing there's no moral difference between active and passive euthanasia. Both sides can agree on every fact — the patient's suffering, the prognosis, the legal risks — and still land in different places. On Stevenson's view, what's left is a difference in how you rank values.
Realists reply that even with all the facts agreed, someone can still be wrong about the moral fact — like two mathematicians who agree on every axiom but split over a proof. Pluralistic relativists like David Wong take a middle path: not every morality is equally valid, but there can be more than one correct morality that weighs legitimate values like autonomy and protecting life differently.
Once the facts are settled, what's left is a difference in attitude. There's no fact making one side wrong.
Key names: Stevenson, Blackburn, David HumeThere can be several valid moralities — though some clearly fail to meet human needs and are just wrong.
Key names: David Wong, Bernard WilliamsLong-lasting disagreement doesn't mean nobody's wrong. Hard to answer isn't the same as no answer.
Key names: Derek Parfit, Peter Singer, Kant