Difference Between Error Theory And Nihilism

Decent Essays
14292768
Word Count: 1070
Error Theory Versus the World
Among many relevant philosophical theories are objectivism, relativism, and nihilism. Unlike the other two theories, nihilism states that no moral claims are true. In support of this theory, nihilism strongly depends on error theory to back up its claims. Error theory states that moral claims are simply a means to describing the moral features of everything going on around the world; however, the theory also claims that there are no moral features in the world, which in turn means that no moral claims can be completely true. Error theory has very strong claims, a distinct difference than other theories, and is also a very legitimate theory with strong support behind it. To begin, it is
…show more content…
Objectivism states that some moral claims are objectively true. One big difference between objectivism and nihilism is that objectivism depends on process of elimination rather than actual merits. It says that nihilism, objectivism, or relativism has to be true before eliminating nihilism and relativism as being false. This leaves only objectivism standing, so proponents say it must be true. While this is a strategic approach, it is not strong. It does a better job trying to disprove other theories than actually doing anything to prove its own theory. On the other side, nihilism uses error theory and different arguments to attempt to prove its merits. Objectivism is basically the exact opposite of nihilism, which says that there are no true moral claims. Objectivism is a strong proponent of saying that some moral claims can be true, but it is never specific in its claims of what these “some” cases really are. Moral relativism is somewhat in between the ideals of objectivism and nihilism. Relativism states that the value of moral claims is relative to the culture or people around them. Perhaps the biggest argument against relativism is the argument from disagreement. This states that if relativism is true, then there can be no genuine disagreement between cultures about morality. However, this already happens on a regular basis around the …show more content…
Objectivism and relativism certainly have certain merits; however, the claims are simply too general and unfocused to be considered as strong as an argument such as error theory. It can seem really difficult to grasp the idea that there can be no true moral claims in the world, but when one really thinks about it in terms of error theory, it makes perfect sense. Nothing in the world is ever going to be established as a 100 percent perfection or imperfection. It is quite simply impossible. For every million people who say murder is wrong, there can be one person who does not see a problem with it. That might seem wrong and unfair, but every person’s beliefs must be considered in order to create an idea of what is morally right or wrong. It is not something that can just be decided on from a majority. It needs to be unanimous in order to be recognized as morally true. If not established by a unanimous approach, there is wiggle room to try to say that in certain situations, things can be right or wrong. It is a very ipso facto approach, meaning that the fact something exists can make something else true, such as a moral claim. Error theory is a very strong, distinct theory that establishes its claims and sticks to them, unlike several other

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    We must assume our beliefs are innocent until proven guilty by Good Reason, and that most of our beliefs are probably close enough to the truth, otherwise they would not have aided in the survival and been selected for by evolution. The best argument against moral realism does not even need evolution to make us rightfully worry, but the inclusion of evolution weakens the argument, leading to skepticism again. Our disposition to make a distinction without a difference is a serious moral dilemma, but has no bearing on the current discussion since we are addressing the problem of evolution in relation to realism. The problem here is not in the content of the argument itself, but in the very…

    • 766 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Clifford could potentially argue that there is more evidence for believing God does not exist than that he does exist. However, it is important to note that he is not forcing you to believe in God, but instead saying you must choose between the two. Another point brought up by James was that there were no negative consequences that would occur with deciding either to believe or disbelieve in God. James used Pascal’s wager to prove this point (James 17). The argument James’ presented was convincing that even though sufficient evidence is not always present, you can still believe in it.…

    • 1154 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    James’ theory would be effective at creating many new beliefs but his process does not emphasize the creation of true beliefs, as he desires. Without criticizing and discussing beliefs James’s idea of maximizing true beliefs is not accomplished. William James was a radical empiricist (James, Preface). He says “‘radical’ because it treats the doctrine of monism itself as a hypothesis, and, unlike so much of the half-way empiricism that is current” (James, Preface). James believed that there are multiple true experiences of a singular reality.…

    • 1421 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    If theory-laden perception is true, then one is justified to any wacky, heterodox, and wrong belief just in case one started with that wacky mistaken belief. Such a result is utterly undesirable, both with non-moral beliefs and moral beliefs. It’s not that I desire justification to be factive, that is for truth to be necessary for justification. I agree with the conventional wisdom in the literature that justification is non-factive, that justification is fallible. Rather, my point is that whatever process someone proposes as the process of justification should attempt or try to track truth.…

    • 1550 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The default belief is that there is a single reality in which knowledge exists, if a critic argues against this, he or she would be saying that there is knowledge for the contrary, which is contradictory: their claim defeats itself. For either side of the argument to be fruitful in efforts, one side would have to have objective knowledge. Disagreeing has never been a sign that there is no truth at all. For example, few doubt the existence of some overarching moral code; they may disagree on the specifics of that code without finding that as lack of any code at all. If there were no objective knowledge, there would be complete chaos; there are so many things in the grand scheme of life that are universally agreed upon.…

    • 1153 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Moore is correct in describing our intuitions as the smarter bet, but because he tries to demonstrate his argument deductively, his "proof" is invalid. Just like Kant, I can only believe the external world to exists on faith, and nothing more. Although I have reason to believe the premise that an external world exists, I cannot prove the premise. Therefore, I cannot construct a conclusion based on such a premise. However this goes the same for philosophical skeptics who cannot prove that the external world does not exist.…

    • 850 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Free Will Vs Determinism

    • 1009 Words
    • 5 Pages

    He uses “uncaused” as a term referring to actions not caused by factors external to the agent (i.e. actions are done for a reason that derives from the agent). Thus according to Taylor make the agent morally responsible because an agent has an intention behind an action. Embracing the conclusion stems from Hard Determinist John Hospers, who “denies that conclusion is unacceptable because according to his theory choices are determined by character, values, goals, etc., in which are determined not by the agent but by factors external and beyond their control “ (The Philosophical Review, page…

    • 1009 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Alternatively, if our explanations come to an end, then they end either with a belief that is not justified, or with a belief that is justified, but not inferentially. A statement is certain or justified if it is proved, but proof is impossible because it is question-begging – any criterion for the validity of a proof requires a different proof, since self-justification is too easy and always possible. A justification procedure…

    • 1084 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    With moral claims based in ethical relativism you get moral truths that are both right and wrong and contradict each other. You can end up with one of two results, either you have no moral claims, or no moral disagreement. Relativist dismiss the idea of moral disagreements, even though it is the main selling point of ethical relativism. I believe that moral disagreements exist and in order to have a moral debate one must be able to make a moral claim based upon more than an opinion, however I do recognize that moral disagreements are not as wide spread as we think. I believe that many of our moral debates can be rooted in similar values, we simply have different ways of expressing…

    • 1010 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    An argument for moral relativism would be that most objective truths can be presented based on reliable decision procedures. However, there is no decision procedure that is able to show the objective truths or falsities of moral beliefs and judgements. I do believe that this is a fair argument because it is considerably harder to prove and explain a truth about a moral belief than it is to prove say a mathematic objective truth. Since there are persistent disagreements regarding values and norms, it implies that moral beliefs are strictly opinions or attitudes created by an individual or a society and therefore cannot be considered objectively true or false. If you were to believe in moral objectivism it would suggest that you are incompatible with tolerance and open mindedness.…

    • 1153 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays