Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Mackie's error theory establishes that if moral facts do not exist mind-independently, moral language systematically makes false objective claims.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Moral language can function expressively or prescriptively without making truth-apt objective claims.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Mind-independence isn't required for objectivity; intersubjective or constructed facts can ground genuine moral truths.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Error theory commits to every moral claim being false, but this seems too radical given convergence in basic moral judgments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Moral utterances syntactically resemble factual claims (e.g., 'Murder is wrong' mirrors 'Water boils at 100°C').
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If moral facts aren't mind-independent, they lack the objective status that moral discourse presupposes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Systematic falsehood best explains why moral disagreement persists despite sincere, rational engagement.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.