The error theory of morality is essentially the view that morality is a (perhaps biologically-useful) illusion.
Delving deeper, this philosophical stance argues that our moral judgments, while appearing to describe objective moral truths, actually fail to do so because no such truths exist.
Key Components of Moral Error Theory
According to the reference, error theory precisely combines two main ideas:
- Cognitivist, Representationalist View of Moral Judgments: This part means that when we make a moral statement like "Stealing is wrong," we intend to express a belief about how the world objectively is, or attribute a property (wrongness) to an action (stealing). We are trying to represent a moral fact.
- Antirealist View of the Moral Domain: This is the crucial error part. Antirealism about morality claims that there are no real, objective moral properties or facts out there for our judgments to correspond to. There is no "wrongness" property that stealing possesses in the same way that a chair possesses the property of having four legs.
Why "Error Theory"?
The name "error theory" comes from the conclusion that all positive moral judgments are systematically in error. Since moral judgments aim to represent objective moral facts (the cognitivist part), but there are no such facts (the antirealist part), every judgment that claims something is morally right or wrong is based on a fundamental mistake. It's like saying "The present king of France is bald" when there is no present king of France – the statement fails to refer to anything real in that context.
In Simple Terms
Imagine believing in ghosts. When you say, "That house is haunted," you believe you are stating a fact about the house having a property (being haunted) caused by real entities (ghosts). Error theory about ghosts would say: you intend to state a fact about the house (cognitivism), but there are no ghosts or "haunted" properties in reality (antirealism). Therefore, your statement, and any similar statement about haunted houses, is in error.
Similarly, error theory says when you call something "good" or "bad" in a moral sense, you intend to point to a real moral quality, but because there are no such qualities in reality, your judgment is mistaken.
Potential Implications
If error theory is true, it raises significant questions about:
- The meaning of moral language: If moral terms don't refer to anything real, what are we actually doing when we use them?
- The basis for moral motivation: If there are no objective moral reasons, why should we behave morally?
- The nature of moral disagreement: What are we even arguing about if there are no moral facts?
While potentially a "biologically-useful illusion" in helping societies function, according to this view, morality lacks a foundation in objective reality.
