What Is Moral Expressivism, And How Does It Differ From A Moral Error Theory?

In the following essay, a response will be provided in respect to question “ What is moral expressivism, and how does it differ from a moral error theory? In what sense are these views forms of moral anti-realism?”

Moral expressivism is the view that there are no moral facts and no moral properties associated. Within this particular perspective, moral claims are made without the support of factual evidence, suggesting that certain claims are made with the intention to express personal convictions, desires, and emotions. Also known as emotivism, moral expressivism was the basis for another one of critiques upon morality asserted through Marx and Nietzsche. Morality was seen as something that was projected onto reality, not reality itself. In respect to Hume’s argument, our own judgements of claiming something to be wrong serve to be the projection of our own dislike of that action onto the action itself. It can be considered that moral expressivist are moral truth sceptics due to their beliefs that moral claims are incapable of holding truths and instead are solely responsible for the display of emotions, values and preferences. In real world settings, where statements hold specific terms such as it being considered “wrong” to torture an innocent human being, moral expressivism becomes evident when these terms are non-descriptive or fact-stating. Since the role of these moral statements are to assert only an evaluative attitude towards an object of evaluation.

Moral error theory is a position on the morality spectrum comprised of two propositions: all moral claims are false and we have reason to believe that all moral claims are false. In essence, as moral claims are being made, there is also an attempt of asserting objective claims as well. The issue, however, lies within the fact that there is nothing for such claims to be objective about. Moral error theory distinguishes itself from moral expressivism due to the latter holding the belief that there is no objective truth behind morality, whereas the former does indeed believe in whether choices are inceed morally acceptable or not. For example, when the claim, “Stealing is wrong” has been made, there is an assertion that the act of stealing is an reliable example of what it is to be morally wrong. However, the error can be found as there is actually no concrete evidence supporting that “stealing” can be claimed to represent a morally unethical act. Due to the lack of reliable support, the moral statement can be formally declared to be riddled with error.

Moral anti-realism is the meta-ethical doctrine that moral claims are not concerned with an independently existing reality. The view on morality is consisted of moral non-cognitivism, moral error theory, and moral non-objectivism. Moral non-cognitivism enforces the mindset of moral judgements avoiding the direction of wherever the truth lies. Non-objectivism acknowledge the existence of moral facts. Despite the validity of these facts, the credibility can only reach so far due to their origination from the personal opinions and ideas of any given individual. For instance, a moral anti-realist might nonetheless claim that moral claims are objective, despite not having a proper explanation as to how it corresponds to another existing independent reality. In cases where moral properties are accepted, their existence is mind-dependent and still not entirely objective or independent.

Moral expressivism is a tangent of non-cognitivism, which can be considered to be a form of moral anti-realism through the way moral expressivists distinguish themselves in the manner that they provide their moral judgements. A key distinguishment moral expressivist tend to have is their detachment of inquiring a moral truth. Their opinions are carried through the foundation of non-factual evidence since their moral statements are purely told in a manner that reveals their personal feelings associated, instead of any objective form of truth. Furthermore, expressivism is demonstrated through projectivism, which is the view that qualities can be attributed to an object if as if those qualities actually belong to it.

Moral error theory can be considered to be a form of moral anti-realism through the way in which they practice holding their moral views under the support of cognitivism and nihilism. The error theory consists of the belief that the moral language haas truth-apt statements but also the belief that there are no moral facts. Since something may be mind-independent while another may be not, there is no set standard to adhere by in order to determine whether something is truly right or wrong.

Humans are self-sufficient to the degree that they are capable of meeting the simplest of desires, such as the desire to avoid pain. The desire to avoid pain can motivate us to go to the dentist, even though the dentist might have to pull a tooth considering that even more pain could be caused by not doing so. While humans are competent in regards to most things, it is inevitable that our appetite in satisfying desire may skew our way of thinking. For instance, a person could be having a bad day, and we may have a subsequent desire to appease that for them through an irrational manner such as going on a shopping spree. Ethics provides a more effective means to fulfilling our desires since our own attempts at doing so often result in failure due to judgements in human error. According to Hume, desires are the driving force behind our moral statements while our actual beliefs are not.

Despite the failure to have the capacity in fully understanding the implications to our basic desires, means to reasoning such as self-reflection and ethical philosophy can allow us to properly and rationally satisfy them. Anti-realism can be considered to be the best approach to accomplishing such a feat. Since the specific desire for the object or whatever outcome of the situation is already present, it can be inferred that it is not actually our beliefs in the intrinsic value that motivate us. Ultimately, moral realism will fail to motivate humans to be moral as morality would be left without direction if it made no difference in determining human behavior.