A question about meta-ethical theory.

[No One Jones]

Non-cognitivism or moral error theory or epistemological moral skepticism?

Which do you consider more valid?

 

[lacktheknack]

What?

No explanation, no opinion.

 

[grimsprice]

I prefer not to complicated my universe with absurd ethical theories that try to sum up a simple biological mechanism for cost/benefit analysis.

 

[Lullabye]

Oh gosh, I have to research this in order to respond properly now don't I?
Wait, no.
I'll just guess.
Um, episte-whats-it moral skepticism. Because I like skepticism.

 

[HT_Black]

I've always espoused non-cognitivism, although I haven't the slightest idea what might compel you to ask me.

 

[No One Jones]

In effect all three are skeptical, because they arrive at the same conclusion by different means. In fact epistemological moral skepticism, is probably the least skeptical of them all. And I don't feel I need to offer an explanation, this post is supposed to attract those with an interest in meta-ethics, not those looking for a speed course in philosophy. Drive-by opinions are for pundits and radio jockeys.

 

[wfpdk]

the answer is Thursday, of course.