Reddit reviews Metaethics

Now, question the very foundation of moral philosophy and ethics itself.

• Do moral facts even exist?
  
• Are moral statements even capable of being true or false? Do they express beliefs or just attitudes like desire/approval? (E.g. it doesn't seem like 'Boo to murder!' is even capable of being true or false.)
  
• Are moral facts relative or absolute?
  
• What is the origin of moral properties? Natural? Non-natural?
  
• How is moral knowledge justified?
  
  Read Metaethics for a quick overview.
  
  For a super beginner-friendly book, read Metaethics: An Introduction by Andrew Fisher.
  
  ​
  
  More specifically, the names of the debates above are:
  
  
• Moral realism vs Moral anti-realism
  
• Moral cognitivism vs Moral non-cognitivism
  
• Moral relativism vs Moral absolutism
  
• Moral naturalism vs Moral non-naturalism
  
• Moral epistemology

> Do you have an example

Sure. This one is pretty basic. Of course it's not a knock-down argument (if it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion) but it's something to think about. It pits moral realism vs error theory, which you said you sided with before. The argument is called The Morrean Shift, after the philosopher GE MOORE.

This "shift" proposes the view that if we think our moral judgements are all necessarily false, then there is something amiss with our thinking.

This "shift" is an argument used originally by Moore against skeptics; it was originally an epistemological argument.

The sceptic claims we don't know the things we thought we knew about the external world, basic things, like that we have two hands, that the sun exists, etc.

Moore reasoned that this extreme sceptisim was unlikely. And because this extreme skepticism is unlikely, he thought we should reject sceptisim.

His argument went like this.

1. I know that I have two hands, that there is a cat in the garden, a sun in the sky.
   
2. If the sceptic is correct then I cannot know I have two hands, that there is a cat in the garden, a sun in the sky.
   Therefore,
   
3. There is a problem with the sceptic’s argument.
   
   Here's pretty much the same argument, applied to our duscussion now.
   
   
4. “Torturing children for fun is morally wrong” is true.
   
5. If error theory is correct, “Torturing children for fun is morally wrong” is not true.
   Therefore,
   
6. There is a problem with error theory.
   
   
   So now that you've heard it, think to yourself which theory is likely to be true -- either the theory that holds that moral claims can be true, or error theory...
   
   Think about the rational grounds there are for accepting either theory.
   
   If you suspect that it's at least as rational to believe that some moral claims are true as it is to believe that no moral claims are true, then it is possible to challenge the truth of error theory on these grounds.
   
   (I have paraphrased all this from an introduction to metaethics, which you can look at here.)

I've read four intros to metaethics. I highly recommend you begin with Fisher's intro and then read Miller's intro.

For metaethics, Andrew Fisher has what I've heard is a good introduction, and Alexander Miller has a more advanced introduction that I like.

For political philosophy, Ian Shapiro's The Moral Foundations of Politics is a great introductory lecture series, and he has an introductory textbook based on the lecture series.

For anthologies, I'd recommend Ethical Theory for normative ethics, Moral Discourse and Practice for metaethics, and What's Wrong? for applied ethics.