The Classical Argument for the Error Theory

We are now making the transition to unit 3 of the course. In unit 1, we spent two weeks on Moore, who is in many ways a paradigmatic realist in metaethics - he thinks that there are truths about morality out there to be discovered, that these truths are independent of anything about us, and that when we discover them we are forming beliefs about the world.

In unit 2, we spent six weeks reading Michael Smith’s book The Moral Problem, which is about what I have called the “classical argument” for noncognitivism. (Noncognitivism, recall, is just what we get if we solve the Moral Problem by concluding that moral judgments are not really beliefs, or not just beliefs.) The classical argument for noncognitivism challenges moral realism by challenging the idea that moral judgments are beliefs.

Now in unit 3, we turn to think about a different kind of traditional challenge to moral realism. Instead of challenging the idea that moral judgments are beliefs, it challenges the idea that moral judgments are true. This challenge is what we can call the “classical argument” for the moral error theory. According to the version of the moral error theory that we will consider, nothing is wrong. Since Smith’s book was about rightness and we’ll be talking from now on about wrongness, you could think that this just changes the subject, but most issues would stay the same if we translated either into the other.

Reading

Our reading for today is chapter 1 of Slaves of the Passions, which introduces and explains what the book will be about. Slaves of the Passions is about a theory that we’ve already encountered in class in our sub-unit on Williams and Korsgaard - The Humean Theory of Reasons. You won’t see a lot in the first chapter about the classical argument for the error theory, but the reason why the Humean Theory of Reasons is so interesting, is because of the role that it plays in the classical argument for the error theory.

A Note About Reading Work By Your Professor

When a professor assigns their own work in class, they are not trying to convince you that what they think or have said is true. They are inviting you to see them as a colleague and engage with them. A book or article that was not written for students, but written for colleagues, when shared with students, is an invitation for those students to put themselves into the role as colleagues. I published this book 14 years ago and I have changed my mind about a number of things in the book, including some really important things. So try really hard not to be shy about exploring where you disagree with what you read in the book!