Philosophical Studies

, Volume 163, Issue 3, pp 627–636 | Cite as

The possibility of morality

Article

Abstract

Despite much discussion over the existence of moral facts, metaethicists have largely ignored the related question of their possibility. This paper addresses the issue from the moral error theorist’s perspective, and shows how the arguments that error theorists have produced against the existence of moral facts at this world, if sound, also show that moral facts are impossible, at least at worlds non-morally identical to our own and, on some versions of the error theory, at any world. So error theorists’ arguments warrant a stronger conclusion than has previously been noticed. This may appear to make them vulnerable to counterarguments that take the possibility of moral facts as a premise. However, I show that any such arguments would be question-begging.

Keywords

Moral error theory Moral realism Possible worlds Moral supervenience 

References

  1. Ayer, A. J. (1946). Language, truth, and logic (2nd ed.). London: Gollancz.Google Scholar
  2. Coons, C. (2011). How to prove that some acts are morally wrong (without using substantive moral premises). Philosophical Studies, 95, 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cuneo, T. (2007). The normative Web. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dreier, J. (2004). Meta-ethics and the problem of creeping minimalism. Philosophical Perspectives, 18, 23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Jackson, F. (1998). From metaphysics to ethics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  6. Joyce, R. (2001). The myth of morality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Joyce, R. (2006). The evolution of morality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Loeb, D. (2008). Moral incoherentism: How to pull a metaphysical rabbit out of a semantic hat. In W. Sinnot-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral psychology (Vol. 2). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Mackie, J. L. (1977). Ethics: Inventing right and wrong. London: Pelican Books.Google Scholar
  10. Olson, J. (2010). In defence of moral error theory. In M. Brady (Ed.), New waves in metaethics. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  11. Streumer, B. (2008). Are there irreducibly normative properties? Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 86, 537–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Streumer, B. (2011). Are normative properties descriptive properties? Philosophical Studies.Google Scholar
  13. Streumer, B. (forthcoming). Can we believe the error theory? Journal of Philosophy.Google Scholar
  14. Sturgeon, N. (2009). Doubts about the supervenience of the evaluative. In R. Shafer-Landau (Ed.), Oxford studies in metaethics (Vol. 4). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Williams, B. (1981). Internal and external reasons. In B. Williams (Ed.), Moral luck. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.PhilosophyUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations