Date:
Tuesday, March 1, 2016 - 5:30pm to 7:00pm
In this talk, I will compare two versions of irrealism about normativity: non-cognitivism, according to which normative judgements do not represent the world, and the error theory, according to which normative judgements do represent the world but always do so inaccurately. I will argue that non-cognitivism is incompatible with the thought that when two people make conflicting normative judgements, at most one of these judgements is correct. By contrast, I will argue, the error theory is compatible with this thought. I will conclude that the error theory is more defensible than non-cognitivism.