The misplaced, if not erroneous, nature of many obligation attributions

Abstract In the present paper, we consider the implications of our work on the logical priority of the epistemic , the thesis that persons’ options are determined in the first instance by their relevant knowledge and ignorance, for the legitimacy of claims that some decision-maker bear an unconditional obligation to make a particular decision or perform a specific action (i.e., categorical obligation attributions ). We argue that the logical priority of the epistemic implies that many such attributions are misplaced, if not erroneous. We defend Naturalistic Moral Error Theory , a novel theory which, though it bears many of the same consequences for moral discourse, is distinct in its metaphysical implications from J. L. Mackie’s (1977) famous moral error theory.