Moral Error Theory
Back"If we admit what Hume calls the mind's 'propensity to spread itself on external objects', we can understand the supposed objectivity of moral qualities as arising from what we can call the projection or objectification of moral attitudes. This would be analogous to what is called the 'pathetic fallacy', the tendency to read our feelings into their objects. If a fungus, say, fills us with disgust, we may be inclined to ascribe to the fungus itself a non-natural quality of foulness... Aesthetic values are logically in the same position as moral ones; much the same metaphysical and epistemological considerations apply to them, but aesthetic values are less strongly objectified than moral ones."
- J.L. Mackie
There are no such things as objective values, and even if there were we would have no way to know anything about them.
Values are aspects OF OUR PERCEPTIONS of the world, not aspects INHERENT TO the world.
For more information on these issues feel free to read my paper at the following link. It's the first essay:
Channel: Education
Uploaded: June 22, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Author: LennyBound
Length: 00:08:14
Rating: 4.61
Views: 700
Tags: Objective Moral Anti-Realism Error Theory Emotivism
Video Comments:
7mak1 (November 7, 2008 at 1:47 am)
Your argument in favour of moral cognitivism seems very weak. Basically, you are saying "If moral non-cognitivism was true, then I could not judge another's moral behaviour. But I want to be able to judge moral behaviour. Therefore moral non-cognitivism cannot be true."
LennyBound (November 7, 2008 at 6:39 pm)
The argument isnt that non-cognitivism makes me uncomfortable therefore cognitivism must be the case. If comfort was what I was aiming for I wouldnt be advocating moral error theory (i.e. moral nihilism). Haha. :-)
LennyBound (November 7, 2008 at 6:39 pm)
The question is how we should interpret our moral language. My claim is that we ought to interpret it how it is used and what it is normally intended to refer to. If we do that, then it seems we ought to be cognitivists. If I tell you Murder is wrong and you tell me that Im actually mistaken, and am merely expressing my emotions, prescriptions, allegiances, etc. Ill reply that youre misunderstanding me.
LennyBound (November 7, 2008 at 6:39 pm)
When I say Murder is wrong what Im trying to say is just that: Murder IS WRONG. The non-cognitivists attempt to strip morality of its normativity simply misses the point of the moral discourse.
LennyBound (November 7, 2008 at 6:40 pm)
I also make a list in the video (1:29) of the other linguistic reasons why a proper interpretation of our moral language would necessitate a cognitivist-objectivist interpretation.
Does that make any more sense?
Does that make any more sense?
ranged12345 (September 8, 2008 at 12:27 pm)
When someone says 'x is wrong' they are referring to the function of "right/wrong" taught by their parents through emotions (result of evolutionary group behaviour), and the effect an action has on a given society. These have been passed on generation by generation, and are the result of models of 'morality' which did not function being superseded by more functioning ones. Thus morality feels intuitive because parents make it a unquestionable routine, and is 50% based on intuitive emotions.
LennyBound (September 2, 2008 at 1:57 am)
In short, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections, and therefore their "truth" shouldn't really be of our concern. To use a term from philosophy of science, we should not consider them to be "truth-evaluable," and merely judge their worth on their ability to assist us in explaining, predicting, and manipulating the world around us.
LennyBound (September 2, 2008 at 1:57 am)
I think that we are disagreeing on whether or not we are epistemically justified in stating that a scientific theory is "true" or not. We can both agree that these theories are great at expanding our understanding of what we THINK of the world and how it appears to works, but it seems you feel comfortable to take the metaphysical step and say that our current theories ARE how the world works.
Sorry for being so long winded. :-/
Sorry for being so long winded. :-/
rezkogitans (September 2, 2008 at 12:27 pm)
I give up! You seem to have some real problem reading and understanding what people say. I didn't say that I thought theories had to be true. I just asked, how can they explain anything except insofar as they are true? With all your replies you haven't addressed that point. (Ironically, btw, you seem very linguistically revisionist here, when opposition to linguistic revisionism constitutes your main argument for moral cognitivism).
LennyBound (September 2, 2008 at 4:12 pm)
Sorry if I'm not understanding your question properly.
If you feel the desire maybe you could rephrase it for me... if not that's fine as well.
If you feel the desire maybe you could rephrase it for me... if not that's fine as well.