+0
"The unreality of objective moral values does not follow from the disagreements that exist between the various views which assert the objectivity of morality".

Should I rather use "among the various views", since I mean more than two?

Sextus
1 2
Comments  
well as far as my experience is concerned, u should use "among" bcz its a broader term n fits well too...





(Nats)
"The unreality of objective moral values does not follow from the disagreements that exist between the various views which assert the objectivity of morality".

1) The word unreality seems an odd choice here. Do you mean untenableness of?

2) Would this work?-- '...disagreements among the various proponents of objectivie morality.'

The untenableness of a belief in objective moral values does not follow from the disagreements that exist among the various proponents of objective morality.
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Or maybe:

"That disagreements exist between those who assert the objectivity of moral values does not necessarily mean that objective moral values do not themselves exist."

MrP
What about

"One might object that the disagreements that exist between the defenders of moral realism show that moral values are unreal. However, the fact that a disagreement exists does not necessarily imply that none of the conflicting views is correct. Hence, one needs more than a conflict of moral realistic positions to deny the objectivity of morality; what one needs is a supposedly correct conception of the world with which moral realism is in conflict". ?

Sextus
That sounds fine to me!

MrP
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Sextus
"...what one needs is a supposedly correct conception of the world..."

Using the phrase supposedly correct is like putting the word correct in quotation marks (in order to indicate that we should treat the word only very loosely), as if there is as little possibility for a conception of the world to be objectively true/correct as there is for moral values.

Then would it be fair to summarize the premise like this: to show that something is unreal , you must first know (show) what is real? And would that not then naturally evolve into even more hypothetical propositions like, 'if this is real, then that isn't'.
I think that perhaps I could say:

"Hence, one needs more than a conflict of moral realistic positions to deny the objectivity of morality; what one needs is a conception of the world which one takes to be objective and with which moral realism is in conflict".

What do you think?

Sextus
Maybe:

"...what one needs is a demonstrably objective conception of the world with which moral realism is in conflict."

MrP
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Show more