Foot's Defense of Morality

Foot gives a brief account of the arguments between objectivists and subjectivists.  Objectivists think that the word 'good' refers to some real moral property of objects.  Subjectivists think that 'good' refers instead to a preference or feeling about an object or state of affairs.  Foot is critical of objectivists because they tend to beg the question, meaning that they assume the truth of their conclusion in their premises.  Foot notes that the subjectivists seem to have something right about the words 'good' and 'bad'.  Although we could give these terms stable definitions within a community, there is nothing to stop an outlying individual from using these terms in a different way.  The 'logical thesis' that seems to result from the subjectivist arguments is that moral disagreement is inevitable. 

Foot then says that there are two ways to interpret the logical thesis.  First, we can take this to be a merely descriptive claim.  Second, we can take this as a normative suggestion to give up on trying to seek agreement.  But Foot says that just because we accept the descriptive claim, this is does not entail that we must accept the attitude according to which we give up all attempts at agreement.  Foot also uses a metaphor to explain the difference between objectivists and herself.  Imagine that someone wants to defend her king by saying that he is super-human.  Another person may say that the king is just a mortal human being like the rest of us.  Foot says that the defender of the king is mistaken if she thinks that her loyalty depends on the super-human nature of the king.  In other words, one can be loyal to the king even if she thinks that the king is an ordinary human being.  Likewise, we can be loyal to morality and ethics even if we don't think that it has some privileged super-natural status.