Pandora's Box

1. Morality: Error Theory VS. Expressivism

There is no such thing as morality.

What does this implies?

That actions are nothing more than mere actions. That we cannot attribute them with a sense of "righteousness" or "wrongness".

According to Error Theorists, the act of slaughtering an innocent human being is no different from the pure action of helping your parent.

The movement of our own bodies have no effect on the overall intrinsic value of objects. A dead body is nothing more than decaying meat, a chemical reaction where the decomposition of our bodily organs occurs. The mere action of a natural loss of matter has no real impact whatsoever on the abstractful concept of morality. Since morality is not objective (there is no universal "law" to which it makes any given set of actions "wrong" or "right"), then the action of some individual "becoming" dead is no different than the action of a rock falling onto the ground.

When a knife cuts through human flesh, what is occuring is the act of a sharp object breaking apart the weak "structures" built around the inside (and outside) of the bodies. The red blood cells traveling through the veins in the affected area will "spill out" since their pathway has been cut through. Any living material (such as cells) are nothing more than complex systems of agents (developed agents or inanimate agents) ever changing the environment around them.

"Just a bunch of carbon compounds!" -

Human conciousness, valued greatly amongst "free willed" beings (there is no such thing as that) are nothing more than an electrical communication system of neurons inside this organ called "brain".

No different than the complex system of "weather" formation or the processes of a processor in a computer!

How can we value something inanimate such as a brain? Tis no different from the table , or the clouds, or the complex computer screen we see everyday.

Nothing but a waste of our chemicals! Our bodily functions are fooling us!!

The infamous error theory implies that, due to these circumstances, and the lack of existence of an objective moral law (or an objective good) that one can perform any action without the worry of simple body emotions. Without the worry of being "wrong" (since actions are not intrinsically wrong or right).

There is no moral ruler beyond all that will punish us if we do "wrongness" such as raping the person who lives next door. There is no objective rule who will command our actions as "wrong" thus providing a lesser value into our lives. No.

Our lives will still be objectively the same regardless. If society never finds out, who will?

No one will judge us. Cause morality is absurd.

Of course, however, what is the point of even killing? Desiring pleasure??

There is no point in them since they are nothing more than simple chemicals playing with our "bodies". There is no such thing as an objective purpose. No reason to be here.

Expressivism tries to smooth out humans emotions by saying that, even though morality may not be objective, whenever we declare something as "wrong" or "right", we are simply trying to convey our disgust or agreement with such action.

Hence why humans, even though there is no real objective moral law, can still "express" their "disgust" or agreement with specific actions, such as murder, rape, or kind actions.

For example, when someone says that hitting animals is wrong, they basically are trying to say, "Eewww animal abuse!"
Or when someone helps an old lady walk across the street, they are basically trying to say that they agree with such action.

Hence why we should all try to avoid making others feel disgust...

However. This is false.

There is nothing "wrong" with commiting an action that made another individual feel disgust or feel pain (since there is no such thing as morality). The simple act of feeling disgust against another person's action does not Merritt that we all ought to not do such actions.

We have no moral duties to do so. We have no real way of being responsible for their distate. Actions are simply mere actions, there is no discrimination against certain actions.

"But the human race will not survive"
-- Is the survival of humanity important? Is it right or wrong for them to survive? There is no difference between a dead human and a living human regardless of personal preference (in terms of morality).

Morality is simply non-existent.

- actions are simply actions. There is no need to attach them with tags determining their "goodness" or "badness" (since there is not any).

Whenever we are trying to justify an action as "wrong" or "right", we are simply commiting an "error" by arguing for something that does not exist.

Similar to how individuals view those adults who still live in their fantasy world of "Santa Claus". They can argue all day about the existence and implications of such mighty being, however, they are all still being erroneous by arguing with something non-existent. Yes, people can believe in those ideas, however, simple belief does not merit existence (or truthfulness). Similar to how morality only exists in the beliefs of humans (in their "emotions" -- aka. on how an action make them feel!)

The only consequences there are are those that the great majority of societies desires there to be.

If there is consensus amongst a society to make another person feel pain due to one's actions (justice such as jail), then one's actions may bring consequences, however, if there are no consensus amongst a society...

And actions are set loose without ... Well... As nature intended...

Well...

There is no nothing wrong with that occuring...

Right?

"Saying [action] is morally wrong is an [error] ---> hence the rise of ERROR THEORY"
--------------------------------------------------------
Leave your comments
If you are against these ideas... Explain your reasoning.

Defend objective morality, or if one is a moral nihilist, defend Expressivism (or other theories).

But of course, who are you to fight against the truth? (Or is it....?)