Acta Analytica

, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp 429–445 | Cite as

The Ramifications of Error Theories about the Deontic

  • Vuko Andrić


Error theories about practical deontic judgements claim that no substantive practical deontic judgement is true. Practical deontic judgements are practical (rather than theoretical) in the sense that they concern actions (rather than beliefs), and they are deontic (rather than evaluative) in the sense that they are about reasons, rightness, wrongness, and obligations (rather than about goodness, badness, and so on). This paper assumes the truth of an error theory about practical deontic judgements in order to examine its ramifications. I defend three contentions. The first is that, if so-called fitting-attitude analyses of value fail, the truth of some substantive evaluative judgements would not be threatened by the fact that no substantive practical deontic judgment is true. Secondly, in light of the truth of these evaluative judgements, the best thing we could do is to continue to make practical deontic judgements despite the truth of an error theory about practical deontic judgements. My third contention is that, if some evaluative judgements are unaffected by an error theory about practical deontic judgements, then such an error theory will eventually lead us to some version of consequentialism.


Moral error theory Deontic morality Values Consequentialism Ishtiyaque Haji 



I am grateful to audiences at Humboldt University Berlin, Konstanz University, Saarland University, Stockholm University, and Uppsala University, where this paper or related papers were discussed, and to an anonymous referee. My research on the subject has been funded by a project grant from the German Research Foundation (grant no. TA 820/1-1).


  1. Anscombe, G. E. M. (1958). Modern moral philosophy. Philosophy, 33(124), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Broome, J. (1991). Weighing goods. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  3. Bykvist, K. (2009). No good fit: why the fitting attitude analysis of value fails. Mind, 118(469), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Eklund, M. (2011). Fictionalism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2011 Edition), E. N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <>.
  5. Garner, R. T. (2007). Abolishing morality. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 10(5), 499–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Haji, I. (2002). Deontic morality and control. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Haji, I. (2003). Flickers of freedom, obligation, and responsibility. American Philosophical Quarterly, 40(4), 287–302.Google Scholar
  8. Haji, I. (2006). Frankfurt-type examples, obligation, and responsibility. The Journal of Ethics, 10(3), 255–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Haji, I. (2009). Freedom and practical reason. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 12(2), 169–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Haji, I. (2010). Intrinsic value, alternative possibilities, and reason. The Journal of Ethics, 14(2), 149–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Haji, I. (2012a). Reason, responsibility, and free will. The Journal of Ethics, 16(2), 175–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haji, I. (2012b). Modest libertarianism and practical reason. Philosophical Issues, 22(1), 201–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haji, I. (2012c). Reason’s debt to freedom: normative appraisals, reasons, and free will. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoefer, C. (2010). Causal determinism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2010 Edition), E. N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <>.
  15. Jacobson, D. (2011). Fitting attitude of value. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2011 Edition), E. N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <>.
  16. Joyce, R. (2001). The myth of morality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Joyce, R. (2009). Moral anti-realism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2009 Edition), E. N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <>.
  18. Kagan, S. (1998). Normative ethics. Westview: Boulder, Co.Google Scholar
  19. Köhler, S. and M. Ridge (2013). Revolutionary expressivism. Ratio, 26(4), 428–449.Google Scholar
  20. Lillehammer, H. (2004). Moral error theory. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 104(1), 95–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. MacIntyre, A. (1981). After virtue. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  22. Nolan, D., Restall, G., & West, C. (2005). Moral fictionalism versus the rest. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 83(3), 307–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rabinowicz, W., & Rønnow-Rasmussen, T. (2004). The strike of the demon: on fitting pro-attitudes and value. Ethics, 114, 391–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Scheffler, S. (1982). The rejection of consequentialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Shaw, W. H. (1999). Contemporary ethics. Taking account of utilitarianism. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  26. Timmons, M. (2002). Moral theory: an introduction. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  27. Williams, B. (1973). A critique of utilitarianism. In J. J. C. Smart & W. Bernard (Eds.), Utilitarianism: for and against (pp. 77–150). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Williams B. (1985). Ethics and the limits of philosophy, Fontana Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MannheimUniversität MannheimMannheimGermany

Personalised recommendations