Street Argument Against Moral Realism

There are various forms of moral realism that maintain different things, all agreeing and disagreeing upon different things. However, one generally agreed feature is that moral claims assert facts, if these facts are true, then the moral claim is also true, in other words there are mind-independent facts about right and wrong. In light of brevity, this is the feature I will be referring to when speaking of moral realism. Throughout my essay I shall explain the negative implications of Streets argument on Moral realist theory and shall outline why it may be the case that realists are not necessarily committed to accepting the critiques. I aim to reach the conclusion that Streets criticism of moral realism does not stand and so despite the proposed Darwinian Dilemma Moral realism is still plausible, but one would be required to explore various other criticisms to reach a definite conclusion regarding the plausibility of Moral Realism. Evolution is understood to have played a huge role in our physical and social behaviour, so it would seem logical that similar evolutionary forces influenced our evaluative

As explained previously to avoid scepticism the Moral Realists must accept the quasi-tracking thesis and as with tracking thesis this means they are required to explain the relation. In the tracking thesis. Street believed that to show it held the realists where committed to accepting the tracking account and so if the quasi-tracking thesis where to remain in line with the tracking thesis one would assume that the moral realists are committed to accepting the quasi-tracking account. (Copp, 2008 Pg. 194-195). Which would presumably be just as implausible as the tracking account meaning Copp thesis falls victim to the same critique as the original tracking