Moral error theory is the thesis that statements attributing moral properties to objects are always untrue. In my thesis I have two aims: to argue for error theory and defend it from a number of objections (chapters 1 and 2); and to consider whether and how we should go on with moral discourse, if we come to accept error theory (chapters 3 and 4). In the first chapter I argue for error theory by defending a number of metaethical theses which taken together reveal that sincere utterances of indicative moral sentences commit us to ‘objectively prescriptive values’. I then go on to defend the arguments of J.L. Mackie and Richard Joyce that such values do not exist, and thus indicative moral sentences are systematically untrue. In the second chapter I deal with five objections to error theory: (i) error theory is self-undermining; (ii) error theory defies commonsense; (iii) error theory is defeated by a modal counter argument; (iv) moral error theory entails an absurd epistemic error theory; (v) the error theorist’s denial that there are any categorical imperatives is untenable, as it is constitutive of being a rational agent that one is guided by certain categorical norms. I show how each of these objections can be dealt with. In the third chapter I begin to look at what we should do with moral discourse once we have accepted error theory. The main foci of this chapter are eliminativism (the thesis that we ought to stop engaging in moral discourse) and reformist realism (the thesis that we should modify the semantics of moral discourse so that our moral terms can successfully refer). I argue that the rationales that have been provided for eliminativism, such as that moral societies are harmful to most of their members, and that it always harmful to make untrue judgements, are unpersuasive. I consider the most plausible way of being a reformist realist is to argue that we should become moral relativists, but I argue that such a move would be unstable and we would revert to non-relativist type. In the fourth chapter I focus on moral fictionalism (the thesis that we should continue to use indicative moral sentences, while adopting some attitude to them other than belief). One of the more interesting motivations that has been offered for moral fictionalism is that moral discourse either facilitates or is essential for some non-moral description. I find no evidence for the stronger claim, but argue that there is some plausibility in the weaker claim. Another interesting suggestion (made by Joyce) is that pretending that certain actions are morally required or forbidden will help motivate prudent behaviour. I argue that although it is very plausible that thinking in moral terms can motivate prudent behaviour, Joyce fails to provide a convincing argument that we can retain these positive motivational effects if we abandon moral belief. In light of this, I argue that the only way for error theorists to retain the positive motivational aspect of moral discourse is by becoming conservationists. The conservationist argues that we can and should continue to form and be guided by genuine moral beliefs, even if we have become convinced of the error theory. Naturally, conservationism is open to a variety of objections, and I deal with the ones that seem most pressing.

In Joyce's Myth of Morality, Joyce proposes an error theory about morality. He then argues that, once we accept an error theory, we have three options: we can be abolitionists and jettison moral discourse, be conservationists and maintain our false moral beliefs, or be revolutionary fictionalists and assent to and act in accordance with moral discourse while believing it's false. In this paper, I argue that Joyce has ignored a fourth option—limited revisionism, or slightly changing our moral terms to avoid problematic commitments—and that this option is superior to the three aforementioned possibilities. Along the way, I show that Joyce has unfairly ignored limited revisionism because of faulty views about what makes a concept or term normative, and that limited revisionism ignores some expected pitfalls, such as overgeneralizing to legitimately error-theoretic discourses. / Master of Arts / In this paper, I argue against Joyce’s assertion that if our moral terms centrally implicate falsehoods, we should act as though morality is true (because it’s useful) while also believing that it’s false (because doing otherwise would be epistemically irresponsible). I show Joyce’s position rests on a specific misunderstanding of how language operates, and argue instead that, if we accept that our current moral talk centrally implicates falsehoods, we should be open to slightly revising our moral terms to avoid implicating such falsehoods instead. I also show that my position, limited revisionism, avoids a few expected pitfalls—most importantly, it doesn’t overgeneralize and apply to terms like “witch” and “phlogiston,” which also centrally implicate falsehoods but seem like terms that shouldn’t be open to conceptual change.

The project that resulted in this work had two main goals. The first was to sort out the most plausible form of the moral error theory, the view made popular by J.L. Mackie in his Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. Second, I aimed to determine the extent of its plausibility. The first three chapters of this dissertation are the result of my attempt to accomplish the first goal, and the last two chapters are a consequence of the second. In the end, I argue that the most plausible version of the error theory (viz., Richard Joyce's development of Mackie's views) is not true. Along the way, I make three additional novel contributions to the meta-ethical literature. First, I provide a close reading of Mackie's work, and I argue that he has been misinterpreted thus far in the literature. Second, I attempt to clarify the linguistic and metaphysical components of the error theory. Third, I explicate a novel view in meta-ethics that isn't a direct descendent of Mackie's views, but which is, in many important respects, similar to his view. I call the view 'moral indecisionism', since its main thesis seems to agree with Hume when he writes, "The chief obstacle ... to our improvement in the moral ... sciences is the obscurity of the ideas, and ambiguity of the terms."

Error theorists about race face a challenge from the occurrence of diseases and other health ailments that, appear, to be tracked by groups that are carved out by racial terms. If race does indeed allow us to make useful medical distinctions, then it would seem foolish or even a form of medical injustice to deny its reality. This paper provides a response to the stated challenge. First, by primarily using the work of Anthony Appiah, I will describe the error theorist position and its arguments for the non-reality of race. From here, I demonstrate the extent to which medical professionals grant the race is a scientifically arbitrary term and give arguments for accepting race as an alternative that may even be more medically useful. Finally, I advance an eliminativist argument to further motivate the notion that race, if it is truly not necessary, should be eliminated from use. / Master of Arts / Error theorists about race face a challenge from the occurrence of diseases and other health ailments that, appear, to be tracked by groups that are carved out by racial terms. If race does indeed allow us to make useful medical distinctions, then it would seem foolish or even a form of medical injustice to deny its reality. This paper provides a response to the stated challenge. First, by primarily using the work of Anthony Appiah, I will describe the error theorist position and its arguments for the non-reality of race. From here, I demonstrate the extent to which medical professionals grant the race is a scientifically arbitrary term and give arguments for accepting race as an alternative that may even be more medically useful. Finally, I advance an eliminativist argument to further motivate the notion that race, if it is truly not necessary, should be eliminated from use.

Error theory turns on a particular presupposition about the conceptual commitments of moral realism, namely that the moral facts posited by realists need to be categorical. True moral propositions are said to have an absolute authority in their prescriptions in the sense that an agent, regardless of her own ends, needs or desires, is categorically obligated and has reason to act in accordance with their prescriptions. But, nothing in the world has such a queer property as categoricity, and therefore we ought to be suspect of the enterprise of moral discourse. Some philosophers, like Stephen Finlay, have argued that this categoricity is not a necessary feature of moral language, and in so doing hope to have shown that the error theoretic critique is thus refuted. In this article I offer a survey of the literature on this topic and then contribute independent motivations for siding with those who think moral facts need not be categorical (and that a powerful argument for error theory is defused).

Abstract In this paper, I will analyze Nietzsche’s argument for a moral error theory and examine the implications of his view. In order to arrive at the best possible interpretation I will heavily incorporate many passages from Nietzsche’s original works so that I can delve into a textual analysis of Nietzsche. Because Nietzsche is notoriously vague at times and often contradictory, I recognize that this is far from the only appropriate interpretation. However, I hope that it is one which has at least some intuitive appeal. Eventually, I hope to prove that despite his rejection of moral truths, Nietzsche’s theory of value can lead us to a sound ethical theory.

Richard Joyce claims sincerely uttering moral claims necessarily commits the moral claimant to endorsing false beliefs regarding the predication of nonexistent (non-)natural moral properties. For Joyce, any proposition containing a subject, x, saddled with the predicate “…is moral”[1] will have a truth-value of ‘false’, so long as the predicate fails to refer to anything real in the world. Furthermore, given the philosophical community’s present state of epistemic ignorance, we lack sufficient evidence to justify our endorsement of the existence of (non-)natural moral properties purportedly capable of serving as truth-makers for moral claims. My thesis offers a defense of Joyce’s moral error theory against two different lines of criticisms proffered by Russ Shafer-Landau—one conceptual in nature, and the other ontological. I argue that available evidence compels the informed agnostic about moral truth to suspend judgment on the matter, if not endorse Joyce’s stronger thesis that all moral claims are false.

No description available.

My dissertation defends a comprehensive version of meta-nonnative skepticism which holds that no standard, norm, or principle has objective authority or normative force. The view does not deny either that there are norms, standards of correctness, and principles of various kinds or that it is possible both to succeed or fail in measuring up to their prerogatives. What it does deny is that any norm has the status of commanding with objective authority, the status of giving rise to objective normative reasons to take seriously and follow its demands. Many believe objective authority is required if we are to make sense of and explain the significance of our normative practices. Without authority, they fear, any critical standpoint vis-à-vis our practices would evaporate, even when we have reached a consensus regarding critical matters, which, without correctness, appears to reflect nothing but an ultimately arbitrary choice. I disagree, and argue that while authority cannot be accommodated within the world as we know it, we don't need it either. A chief goal of my dissertation is to propose a positive interpretation of our normative practices that dispenses with authoritative facts directing us what to do. The practical question of what to make of our practices and our involvement with them, I counter, retains significance only when pursued from an engaged rather than a detached perspective - one that we adopt when, driven by our concerns and commitments, we actively participate in the resolution of practical problems, including the selection and development of norms to live by, searching for common ground for how to coordinate our individual and joint endeavors. Even though there are no definitive answers, this deliberative enterprise is not unconstrained; it is carried out within a tight web of norms that we do already accept, a web we continuously spin and expand.

No description available.