Moral realism holds that moral truths exist objectively, independent of what anyone believes. If so, moral disagreement is like scientific disagreement—someone is wrong. But persistent cross-cultural moral disagreement is invoked against realism: if moral facts exist, why can't we converge on them? Realists respond that disagreement persists in science too (for centuries), and that moral disagreement often involves non-moral disagreements (about consequences, not values) or self-interest distorting judgment.
It can be inferred from the text that
the persistence of disagreement may not straightforwardly demonstrate the non-existence of objective truths
all moral disagreements involve identical factual beliefs
scientific disagreement never persists over time
moral realists have no response to the disagreement objection
Correct Answer: A
Choice A is the best answer. Realists offer explanations for disagreement consistent with truth.
- Context clues: Disagreement persists in science too; many disagreements are about non-moral matters; self-interest distorts.
- Meaning: Disagreement has alternative explanations beyond truth's non-existence.
- Verify: The realist responses show disagreement doesn't simply prove no objective truth.
đŸ’¡ Strategy: When alternative explanations exist for a phenomenon used to support a conclusion, infer the conclusion isn't straightforward.
Choice B is incorrect because disagreements "often involve non-moral disagreements." Choice C is incorrect because disagreement "persists in science too (for centuries)." Choice D is incorrect because realists offer multiple responses.