Within moral philosophy there is a perspective called Quasi-Realism. I find this to be a thought provoking take on the nature of morality.
This approach is championed by philosophers such as Simon Blackburn and offers us a unique lens through which we can examine our moral convictions.
What is Quasi-Realism?
At its base, quasi-realism represents a middle ground between moral realism and non-cognitivism. Unlike moral realism, which posits moral objective facts, and non-cognitivism, which see moral statements as subjective emotion, quasi-realism seeks a middle path.
Expressivism
Quasi-realism begins with stating that moral judgments are expressed attitudes and feelings. But they clarify that these expressions still have meaning. There are parallels to expressionism, here, in that quasi-realists assert that moral statements convey our sentiments and preferences.
Challenging Traditional Realism
As a challenge to traditional realism, quasi-realism suggests that study of morality is not necessarily about uncovering universal truths. Instead, it proposes that moral discourse serves important purposes, such as, influencing others, expressing commitment and participating in social life. Quasi-Realists urge us not to commit to an objective moral reality.
Quasi-Realism is Open to All Possibilities
Quasi-Realism thrives in the gray area of moral philosophy. It is, perhaps, the “meh” to the partnership of good and bad. It acknowledges the importance of moral language and discourse without committing to the existence of objective moral facts.
This allows for a great flexibility in the study and understanding of the complexities of morality.
What Does This Mean in Every Day Life?
We are faced with numerous moral challenges in life. What is right and what is wrong? What is good and what is bad? Quasi-Realism allows for the blending of the polarities.
Example: It is wrong to have an affair. Is this an objective fact? Is it wrong in every case, universally? Is this a fact or merely a statement of emotion?
A quasi-realist might argue that having an affair, is indeed, wrong. But they would be speaking from their own preference and are aware that, their preference, may not represent a universal truth.
The quasi-realist can agree or disagree with a position, but they do not affirm the existence of universally binding moral truths. In modern day, I see quasi-realism as a necessary thought seed for everyone. If you believe strongly that something is morally wrong, does that give you the ability to state it as a truth for all?
Balance
The end result is the same. The realist, the non-cognitivist and the quasi-realist all believe that people hold moral beliefs. The difference is one camp says there are objective (universal) truths and the other side says there are not. Why not explore all the space in between?
And someone please come up with a good joke for…a realist, a non-cognitivist and a quasi-realist are sitting at a bar…