Normativity and ethics: the error in the error theory

Do moral norms invariably supply agents with reasons? Does the dedicated immoralist necessarily have adequate reason to act morally? Ordinary thought may have it that the answers are yes and yes, but some people think no and no. The error theorist, in particular, thinks so on the grounds that all re...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Lofitis, Kipros
Format: Thesis (University of Nottingham only)
Language:English
Published: 2019
Subjects:
Online Access:https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/55776/
_version_ 1848799213368901632
author Lofitis, Kipros
author_facet Lofitis, Kipros
author_sort Lofitis, Kipros
building Nottingham Research Data Repository
collection Online Access
description Do moral norms invariably supply agents with reasons? Does the dedicated immoralist necessarily have adequate reason to act morally? Ordinary thought may have it that the answers are yes and yes, but some people think no and no. The error theorist, in particular, thinks so on the grounds that all reasons, weak or strong, are instrumental: necessarily favouring actions that are instrumental to the agent’s own ends. For this reason, she is inclined to impute ordinary thought with error. This thesis examines the error theorist’s grounds for thinking this, and finds none convincing. The resulting conclusion is that — for all we know — moral norms do invariably supply agents with reasons, and that the error theorist herself errs in thinking that they do not. The thesis closes by considering an alternative route to supporting the claim that moral norms do not invariably supply agents with reasons, which even though is rather attractive, is also in dire need of support.
first_indexed 2025-11-14T20:32:05Z
format Thesis (University of Nottingham only)
id nottingham-55776
institution University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus
institution_category Local University
language English
last_indexed 2025-11-14T20:32:05Z
publishDate 2019
recordtype eprints
repository_type Digital Repository
spelling nottingham-557762025-02-28T14:20:21Z https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/55776/ Normativity and ethics: the error in the error theory Lofitis, Kipros Do moral norms invariably supply agents with reasons? Does the dedicated immoralist necessarily have adequate reason to act morally? Ordinary thought may have it that the answers are yes and yes, but some people think no and no. The error theorist, in particular, thinks so on the grounds that all reasons, weak or strong, are instrumental: necessarily favouring actions that are instrumental to the agent’s own ends. For this reason, she is inclined to impute ordinary thought with error. This thesis examines the error theorist’s grounds for thinking this, and finds none convincing. The resulting conclusion is that — for all we know — moral norms do invariably supply agents with reasons, and that the error theorist herself errs in thinking that they do not. The thesis closes by considering an alternative route to supporting the claim that moral norms do not invariably supply agents with reasons, which even though is rather attractive, is also in dire need of support. 2019-07-22 Thesis (University of Nottingham only) NonPeerReviewed application/pdf en arr https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/55776/1/final%20thesis%20final.pdf Lofitis, Kipros (2019) Normativity and ethics: the error in the error theory. PhD thesis, University of Nottingham. ethics; normativity
spellingShingle ethics; normativity
Lofitis, Kipros
Normativity and ethics: the error in the error theory
title Normativity and ethics: the error in the error theory
title_full Normativity and ethics: the error in the error theory
title_fullStr Normativity and ethics: the error in the error theory
title_full_unstemmed Normativity and ethics: the error in the error theory
title_short Normativity and ethics: the error in the error theory
title_sort normativity and ethics: the error in the error theory
topic ethics; normativity
url https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/55776/