Philosophy Metaethics Questions Long
Moral error theory is a philosophical position within metaethics that challenges the existence of objective moral truths. According to moral error theorists, moral statements are systematically mistaken because they presuppose the existence of moral properties or facts that do not actually exist. In other words, moral error theorists argue that all moral judgments are false.
The concept of moral error theory can be traced back to the works of philosophers such as J.L. Mackie and Richard Joyce. Mackie, in his influential book "Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong," argued that moral properties, such as goodness or rightness, are not part of the natural world and cannot be objectively grounded. He claimed that moral judgments are merely expressions of subjective attitudes or emotions, and that they do not correspond to any objective moral truths.
Mackie's argument is based on what he called the "argument from queerness." He claimed that if objective moral properties existed, they would be fundamentally different from any other properties we know of in the natural world. Moral properties would be "queer" in the sense that they would be non-natural, non-reducible, and causally impotent. Since such properties are highly implausible, Mackie concluded that moral error theory is a more reasonable position to adopt.
Richard Joyce further developed the moral error theory by focusing on the evolutionary origins of moral beliefs. He argued that our moral judgments are the result of natural selection, which favored individuals who had certain moral beliefs and behaviors. However, Joyce claimed that this does not provide any evidence for the existence of objective moral truths. Instead, he argued that our moral beliefs are simply products of evolutionary processes and do not correspond to any external moral reality.
One of the main challenges for moral error theory is the problem of moral disagreement. Critics argue that if all moral judgments are false, then it would be difficult to explain why there is widespread agreement on certain moral issues. However, moral error theorists respond by pointing out that moral disagreement is not necessarily evidence for the existence of objective moral truths. Disagreements can arise due to different cultural, social, or individual perspectives, without implying the existence of objective moral facts.
Another criticism of moral error theory is that it seems to undermine the motivation for moral action. If there are no objective moral truths, then why should we bother being moral? However, moral error theorists argue that moral motivation can still be grounded in other factors, such as empathy, social norms, or personal values. They claim that even if moral judgments are false, we can still have reasons to act morally based on these other considerations.
In conclusion, moral error theory challenges the existence of objective moral truths and argues that all moral judgments are false. It suggests that moral properties or facts do not exist and that our moral beliefs are merely expressions of subjective attitudes or emotions. While moral error theory faces challenges regarding moral disagreement and motivation for moral action, proponents argue that these issues can be addressed without resorting to the existence of objective moral truths.