Error theorists are not launching some small-scale attack on morality. They are not criticizing our current views on, say, welfare policy or capital punishment, and trying to replace them with better ones. Rather, as they see it, all moral views are equally bankrupt.
They do not see the value in them.
Even if, in the end, expressivism turns out to have more costs than benefits, this doesn’t leave objectivists in the clear. It may be that morality is all make-believe, as error theorists claim. Most of us (especially we textbook authors!) hope this isn’t so.
Morality could just all be in your head and it is all fake and people just make up rules and morals.
But this way of thinking is mistaken as well. Error theorists can care deeply about others, and can be strongly opposed to doing the things that we traditionally regard as morally wrong (e.g., killing, stealing, and lying).
It is not true they still have feelings and still know right from wrong.
Another popular objection to the error theory is really targeted at error theorists themselves. The idea here is that those who reject categorical reasons and the objectivity of morality are bound to be untrustworthy.
People are deemed as not good people and no one can trust them.
First, they must show that buying into morality really does assume a commitment to moral objectivity and categorical reasons. That will be news to many—to subjectivists and relativists, for instance, and to expressivists, whose views we are soon to discuss. If morality does not, in fact, rely on these assumptions, then the error theorist’s criticisms will fail.
They need to answer the first part or else their entire argument is false.
There are two important forms of moral nihilism: the error theory and expressivism. Error theorists claim that our moral judgments are always mistaken. Expressivists deny this, while also denying that our moral claims can ever offer an accurate take on reality. Expressivism is the more complicated doctrine, so let’s ease our way into the nihilist camp by first considering the error theory.
Complete opposites of each other
Ideal observers don’t really exist—no one, and no culture, knows all there is to know. And no one, and no group, is perfectly rational
No-one is perfect and not a single group of people know everything.
Such “honor killings” usually go unpunished. That’s because the cultures in which they are committed often regard them as justified.
We do not accept this at all but since it is their culture it is accepted and stye deem it as a good thing and it is justified.
Though united in their opposition to nihilism and ethical objectivism, subjectivists and relativists do not always see eye to eye.
In some instances they do not agree even if they are similar.
Cultural relativism instead locates the ultimate standard of morality within each culture’s commitments. It says that an act is morally acceptable if, only if, and because it is allowed by the guiding ideals of the society in which it is performed, and immoral if, only if, and because it is forbidden by those ideals.
It all matters or the norms of your culture and even though it may seem different to other cultures it is okay because it is your culture.
Objective moral standards are those that apply to everyone, even if people don’t believe that they do, even if people are indifferent to them, and even if obeying them fails to satisfy anyone’s desires.
People follow objective morals to satisfy others desires and you do it wether you choose to or not.
All people are allowed to pursue self-interest.Each person is entitled to a certain sphere of personal freedom that imposes a duty of non-interference on everyone else.
How you should think when thinking about everyones self interest.
The basic explanation for this is that egoists cannot accept the argument’s central claim. Egoists deny that there are two ultimate sources of moral duty (consent and reparation). In fact, egoists deny that either of these is a source of moral duty. For them, self-interest is the only source of our moral duties. We must fulfill our voluntary agreements, or repair the damage we’ve done, only when doing so is in our best interest. When it is not, we have no moral duty.
Important on why egoists do not accept Libertarian Argument.
The first premise is false because those who are in need of help would not be better off if others were to neglect them. If you are suffering a heart attack and I know CPR and am the only one able to help, then you are definitely worse off, not better, if I decide to leave you alone and go on my way.
Providing explanations on why the claim is false.
If an ethical theory requires killing, rape, or theft, just because such actions maximize self-interest, then that theory cannot be true.Ethical egoism sometimes requires such actions, just because they sometimes do maximize self-interest.Therefore, ethical egoism cannot be true.
Showing good examples on how it can not be true. Also reasoning for one side.
Psychological egoism is a theory about human motivation: it tells us that all of our actions are ultimately motivated exclusively by self-interest. This is not an ethical view, because it says nothing about what is good or bad, right or wrong.
Need to know.