error theory

Question 1

Mackie error theory

Answer 1

The idea that moral judgment is universally and systematically false

Moral language- function other than describing the world
we are trying to describe the world- even people will find themselves says things like murder are wrong but it seems like the right thing to say. The way they were speaking before was cognitivist.

Two arguments- relativity and queerness

Question 2

Relativity

Answer 2

Different people in different places have different moral rules.
Too simple to say when people disagree there is no fact
Inference to the best explanation
One explanation- there is a moral reality ie there is a moral fact
2nd- there are no moral facts just moral cultural facts, and no one is more or less wrong than someone else and some were able to detect them better.

Question 3

Argument from relativity

Answer 3

P1 there are differences in moral codes from society to society (moral judgment appear to be made relative to each society)
P2 accompanying these radical differences is a disagreement between people about moral codes
P3 disagreement may occur between people either because
a) there is an objective truth about the matter, but people’s perceptions of it is distorted
b) there is no objective truth about the matter
p4 moral disagreement may occur between people either because:
a) there are objective moral values but people’s perceptions of these are distorted
or
b) there are no objective moral values there are implied reflections of a different way of living
conc- there are no objective moral disagreements is that there are no objective moral values.

Question 4

Criticism

Answer 4

perhaps there are in fact common ethical principles present in all societies ie don’t kill steal or lie and look after your kin. This may be evidence that the moral realist is correct in say that these fundamental principles are objective and not relative. Hence moral anti realism may be wrong

Question 5

Argument from queerness

Answer 5

Splits into 2 parts
Suppose if there were moral properties they would be completely different from anything else
Nothing else is like this which is a real feature of the world and which moves us. They will be queer utterly different
the way of knowing these properties would be queer
We would have to believe in things that are so strange hence when murder is wrong u are trying to describe the world but failing to do so.
Me think the world contains something that it doesn’t actually contain.

Question 6

Pt1 metaphysical queerness

Answer 6

If the moral realist were right in theory that there are mind-independent properties or facts, they would have to be something very queer. They will be unlike any other property that we are familiar with. We are familiar with certain properties revealed without senses, but moral facts and properties will be unlike these sorts. Mackie wouldn’t know what these are, so it is better to just think there are no moral mind-independent moral facts or properties metaphysics- beyond physics

Question 7

P2 Epistemological queerness

Answer 7

If these odd moral facts and properties existed, how would we know them? Because they are not physical things then it could seem we couldn’t know them from the senses. It would almost seem it we would need a moral faculty to know these moral facts and properties. This moral factuality would be intuition to know moral facts. And intuitionists don’t have a common understanding of a hunch. Mackie just thinks it is not conceiving.

Question 8

These arguments provide a springboard for error theory

Answer 8

When people talk about morality, they genuinely think they are stating something of the world. But bc of the arguments there aren’t actually any moral facts for our statement to correspond with, there is no fact of the matter for the statement to hit so it doesn’t matter bc all will be false bc there are no moral facts.

We are brought in our cultures- bring us rules, rules are embedded in our minds. Rules become so ingrained in our minds we think of them as facts. When we utter moral phases we think we are talking about facts due to the power of culture. But there are no moral facts out there. So we think that we are projecting facts onto the world but there are no facts

Question 9

Mackie ontological claim

argument for anti realism

Answer 9

Mackie argues for the bold claim that there are no objective moral values.
somethings are objective if:
it’s either true or false pr
it’s about the world out there or it describes something that is mind-independent

for Mackie moral judgement, cant is objective in any o these ways because moral properties do not exist in the world.
his conclusion that there are no moral properties is based on his arguments from relativity and from queerness.

Question 10

mackie semantic claim

argument about non cognitive

Answer 10

all of our ethical judgement include a claim to objectivity. this is an error.

this is not a linguistic error ie are not misusing or misunderstanding.

its an error based on our beliefs in objective independent moral properties don’t exist

the error arise from the way we are brought up in society which leads to a complex moral theory that we then project onto the world as if it were true of the world.

we objectify social arrangments eg don’t do – into moral code.

this is a mistake as we refer to moral codes in the world that don’t exist.