Difference Between Error Theory And Nihilism

1071 Words 5 Pages
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