Error Theory (not finished) Flashcards
Atheist argument against theological voluntarism
- If theological voluntarism is to be viable, then there must be a law-giving God
- There is no law-giving God
Therefore 3. Theological voluntarism is not viable
Anscombe’s argument against law-conceptions of ethics
- If a law-conception of ethics is to be viable, then there must be a law-giving God
- There is no law-giving God
Therefore 3. A law-conception of ethics is not viable
Without a law-giving God…
Theological voluntarism looks unviable
The error theory
All moral assertions are false/empty/without justification
What are the three positions on moral assertions?
The moral dogmatist, the moral sceptic, the moral nihilist
The moral dogmatist
One who believes we can know whether moral claims are true and believes they are true
The moral sceptic
One who believes we cannot know whether moral claims are true
The moral nihilist
One who believes we can know whether moral claims are true and believes they are false
Moral nihilists say that nothing is actually…
Good/bad/permissible/impermissible
Moral realists say that certain things are…
Good/bad or certain acts/states of affairs can have certain moral properties
Is moral nihilism similar to non-cognitivism?
Yes, they also hold that nothing is good/bad/permissible/impermissible but for the non-cognitivist this doesn’t mean that moral assertions are empty
What are nihilists and non-cognitivists?
Anti-realists
What do nihilists and non-cognitivists believe?
That it is not true that certain acts/states of affairs can have certain moral properties
What is a nihilist best described as?
An error theorist
Error theorist
Moral discourse has the aim of securing truth but, it systematically fails to do so
How does Mackie aim to show that we have been making an error by looking at something objectively prescriptive to justify moral judgements?
The argument from relativity and the argument from queerness
The argument from relativity premise 1
1) There is an enormous amount of variation in moral views, and that moral disagreements often seem unusually intractable. (some cultures have inferior epistemic access than others)
The argument from relativity premise 2
2) The best explanation of such phenomena is that all moral judgments ‘reflect adherence to and participation in different ways of life’
The argument from relativity premise 3
3) If all moral judgements only reflect adherence to and participation in different ways of life, then although moral judgments implicitly claim, among other things, to be pointing to something objectively prescriptive, these claims are all false.
Conclusion of the argument from relativity
Although moral judgments implicitly claim, among other things, to be pointing to
something objectively prescriptive, these claims are all false. (Error theory)
The argument from queerness premise 1
1) If a theory necessarily posits ‘queer’ properties - ‘qualities or relations of a very strange sort, utterly different from anything else in the universe’ – we have good reason to believe it is false.
The argument from queerness premise 2
2) The thesis that moral judgments point to something objectively
prescriptive necessarily posits queer properties.
Conclusion of the argument from queerness
Although moral judgments implicitly claim, among other things, to be pointing to something objectively prescriptive, these claims are all false.
(Error theory)
Would supporting the error theory cause an existential crisis?
No, it would cause an emotional reaction but not the abandonment of wanting anything
Is supporting the error theory evil?
No, it does not imply anything about the actions one should perform, just that they will not believe in the actions are morally desirable
What does the error theory imply?
That you eliminate your practical kinds of justification, no longer refrain from doing something simply because you believe it is morally forbidden
What does error theory leave the possibility of?
That there may be other reasons that you should or shouldn’t do something
