Folk metaethics and error.

Bibliographic Details
Title: Folk metaethics and error.
Authors: Zhao, Xinkan1 (AUTHOR) zhaoxinkan@sjtu.edu.cn
Source: Philosophical Psychology. Nov2024, Vol. 37 Issue 8, p2262-2284. 23p.
Subject Terms: *ERROR analysis in mathematics, *ETHNOPSYCHOLOGY, *THEORY (Philosophy), *EXPERIMENTAL philosophy, *FOLKLORE
Abstract: Philosophers have in recent years displayed an increasing interest in investigating folk metaethical beliefs using rigorous empirical methods. Taken together, these studies put significant pressure on many philosophical theories that depend on the truth of folk moral objectivism, the view that the folk see morality as objectively grounded. Frequently included among the target of criticism is Mackie's error theory, or more specifically the conceptual claim thereof. Finding this criticism misplaced, Benjamin Fraser tries to exonerate error theory from such accusation by distinguishing different senses of objectivity. In this paper, I show why Fraser's strategy is not successful so that the pressure empirically brought upon classical error theory is genuine. However, I also argue that even on the new picture suggested by experimental studies, the folk still entertain erroneous beliefs, which, when coupled with plausible metasemantic assumptions and further empirical support, should warrant an error theory after all, though not in its classical form. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Philosophical Psychology is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Academic Search Complete
Full text is not displayed to guests.
More Details
ISSN:09515089
DOI:10.1080/09515089.2022.2139231
Published in:Philosophical Psychology
Language:English