Classical Presupposition Audit — Richard Joyce
Instrument: Classical Presupposition Audit (CPA) v1.0. Instrument architecture and analysis: Dave Kelly. Theoretical foundations: Grant C. Sterling. Prose rendering: Claude. Sterling/Kelly corpus. 2026.
Subject: Richard Joyce (1966–), Professor of Philosophy, Victoria University of Wellington; leading figure in moral error theory and evolutionary debunking of moral norms. Primary sources: The Myth of Morality (2001); The Evolution of Morality (2006); “Moral Anti-Realism” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2015, updated 2021); “Moral Fictionalism” (2005); “Evolution, Truth-Tracking, and Moral Realism” (2019).
Relevance to corpus. Joyce is named alongside Street in the Classical Field Audit — Ethics as the primary contemporary representative of the evolutionary debunking tradition. His error-theoretic position is structurally distinct from Street’s constructivism at a load-bearing point — most critically at C5 — and this run is produced as a pair with the Street run to document that distinction precisely rather than treat the two figures as interchangeable representatives of a single anti-realist position.
Step 0 — Protocol Activation
Corpus in view. Sources restricted to Joyce’s own published record. No prior conclusion stated. The Street run (produced immediately prior) is referenced where relevant for distinguishing Joyce’s specific presuppositions from Street’s, but no finding is assumed from that run. The Non-Operative positive-showing requirement is in force throughout.
Self-Audit Complete. Proceed to Step 1.
Step 1 — Presupposition Profile
P1 — Moral error theory: moral claims purport to describe objective, categorical, mind-independent moral facts, and no such facts exist. The Myth of Morality requires that ordinary moral discourse is committed to the existence of objective, mind-independent, categorically prescriptive moral facts, and that this commitment is systematically unsatisfied because no such facts exist. This makes all positive moral claims false — not merely unwarranted or contextually inappropriate, but false in the correspondence sense. This is maximally load-bearing: it is the definition of Joyce’s error theory and the premise from which his fictionalist practical conclusion follows.
P2 — The evolutionary debunking argument. The Evolution of Morality requires that natural selection shaped our moral faculties to produce moral judgments that enhanced reproductive fitness rather than moral judgments that tracked moral truth. Since there is no pre-established harmony between fitness enhancement and moral truth on a naturalist view, our evolved moral faculties have no credentials as guides to mind-independent moral reality. This provides independent grounds for moral anti-realism beyond P1’s metaphysical claim: even if objective moral facts existed, we could not know them via faculties calibrated by fitness rather than truth.
P3 — Moral fictionalism as the practical upshot. Joyce’s fictionalism requires that moral discourse, though literally false, serves valuable practical functions — motivating cooperation, sustaining commitment, structuring social life — that justify its continued use as a useful fiction rather than its abandonment. This is load-bearing for the practical dimension of Joyce’s position: he is not recommending that we stop talking morally, but that we do so with the understanding that we are engaging in a useful fiction rather than stating truths.
Stage B — Domain Mapping. P1 is mapped at C5 and C6: the error-theoretic claim that moral claims purport to correspondence truth (C5) but all fail because no moral facts exist (C6). P2 is mapped at C3: the evolutionary debunking of moral intuitions as guides to moral reality. P3 bears only on the practical framing of Joyce’s position and does not independently affect any commitment finding. The C1, C2, and C4 questions are examined for whether P1 or P2 bears on them, with the positive-showing requirement in force. The critical distinction from Street is flagged: Joyce’s error theory accepts correspondence truth as the standard for moral claims and concludes they fail it; Street’s constructivism rejects correspondence truth as the right standard for moral claims. This difference is load-bearing specifically at C5 and is carried into Step 2.
Self-Audit Complete: the Street distinction flagged at Stage B rather than assumed; P3 correctly identified as bearing only on practical framing, not on commitment findings; C1, C2, and C4 flagged for independent examination with positive-showing requirement in force. Proceed to Step 2.
Step 2 — Commitment Audit
C1 — Substance Dualism. Non-Operative. Positive showing: Joyce’s error theory and his evolutionary debunking argument are both metaethical positions about the existence and knowability of moral facts. Neither requires a position on the metaphysics of mind or the soul. Joyce is a naturalist about mind in his broader philosophical commitments, but this naturalism is not the load-bearing premise of his moral argument: the evolutionary debunking argument works equally on physicalist, dualist, or hylomorphic accounts of the mind, so long as the mind’s moral faculties were shaped by selection for fitness rather than truth. No engagement with substance dualism, physicalism, or hylomorphism was found as load-bearing in Joyce’s moral-philosophical record.
C2 — Libertarian Free Will. Non-Operative. Positive showing: Joyce’s error theory addresses whether moral claims are true, not whether agents freely originate their choices. His fictionalism addresses whether moral discourse is practically valuable, not whether the practical reasoning it structures involves libertarian self-determination. His evolutionary argument addresses the epistemic credentials of moral faculties, not the metaphysics of the will. No engagement with libertarian free will, compatibilism, or the free will debate was found as load-bearing in his record. The absence is again architectural.
C3 — Ethical Intuitionism. Contrary. P2 is a direct, argued denial of the epistemic credentials of the faculty C3 requires. Joyce’s evolutionary debunking argument establishes that our moral faculties were shaped by selection for fitness rather than truth and therefore have no reliable purchase on mind-independent moral reality, even if such reality existed. This directly targets C3’s core claim: that the rational faculty can directly apprehend moral truth. The debunking argument does not merely raise a skeptical challenge; it provides a positive, mechanistic explanation of why our moral faculties are calibrated by something other than moral truth, which is a stronger result than generic skepticism and a direct denial of C3’s enabling presupposition.
C4 — Foundationalism. Non-Operative. Positive showing: Joyce’s error theory is a claim about whether moral facts exist, not about the structure of moral knowledge or justification. His evolutionary argument is a claim about the calibration of moral faculties, not about whether justified moral beliefs are foundationally or coherentistically structured. The foundationalism debate concerns how moral knowledge, if it exists, is organized; Joyce’s debate concerns whether it exists at all. These are distinct questions and his record addresses only the latter.
C5 — Correspondence Theory of Truth. Partially Aligned. This is the load-bearing distinction between Joyce’s profile and Street’s, and it requires precise handling. P1’s error theory explicitly presupposes correspondence truth as the standard for moral claims: Joyce’s argument is that moral discourse purports to describe objective, mind-independent moral facts — it aspires to correspondence truth — and fails because no such facts exist. This is an acceptance of correspondence as the governing standard for moral claims, not a rejection of it. Error theory is internally committed to C5: if moral claims did not purport to correspondence truth, the error-theoretic diagnosis would be unavailable — there would be no gap between what moral claims purport to do and what the world contains. The finding is Partially Aligned rather than Aligned because Joyce’s acceptance of correspondence truth as the standard is coupled with his conclusion that no moral claim successfully meets this standard — C5 is presupposed but never instantiated, within his framework, by any actual moral claim.
C6 — Moral Realism. Contrary. P1’s conclusion — no objective, mind-independent moral facts exist — is a direct, argued denial of C6’s core claim. The Myth of Morality is among the most systematic and technically sophisticated defenses of moral error theory in contemporary analytic philosophy. No qualification or residual was found: Joyce’s commitment to the non-existence of objective moral facts is uncompromising, load-bearing, and argued at book length. This is the most explicit Contrary finding at C6 produced in the Ethics/Philosophy cluster.
Self-Audit Complete: all six commitments audited; three Non-Operative findings each given a positive showing; C5 Partially Aligned finding derived precisely from the error theory’s internal presupposition of correspondence truth as the standard moral claims fail, explicitly distinguished from Street’s C5 Contrary finding; C3 Contrary derived from the specific content of the evolutionary debunking argument rather than from a general anti-realist label; no finding distributed for apparent balance. Proceed to Step 3.
Step 3 — Dissolution Finding
C1: Non-Operative. C2: Non-Operative. Per the instrument’s architecture: No Dissolution.
As with Street, the practical consequence requires precise statement. Joyce’s framework leaves the rational subject architecturally undisturbed while denying the objective moral ground that subject’s practical reasoning is supposed to reach. An agent who adopts Joyce’s framework is not asked to dissolve his prohairesis but is asked to accept: that his moral faculties are evolutionary byproducts calibrated for fitness rather than truth (C3 Contrary); that his moral claims, though purporting to correspondence truth, are systematically false because there is nothing for them to correspond to (C5 Partially Aligned, C6 Contrary); and that the moral discourse he continues to use, on Joyce’s fictionalist recommendation, is a useful fiction rather than a truth-tracking practice. His rational faculty remains; its moral deliverances are, on this account, reliable as fitness-enhancing outputs and unreliable as guides to moral reality.
Self-Audit Complete. Proceed to Step 4.
Step 4 — Summary Finding
Part A — Commitment Pattern
| Commitment | Finding |
|---|---|
| C1 — Substance Dualism | Non-Operative |
| C2 — Libertarian Free Will | Non-Operative |
| C3 — Ethical Intuitionism | Contrary |
| C4 — Foundationalism | Non-Operative |
| C5 — Correspondence Theory of Truth | Partially Aligned |
| C6 — Moral Realism | Contrary |
Zero Aligned, one Partially Aligned (C5), two Contrary (C3, C6), zero Inconsistent, three Non-Operative (C1, C2, C4). No Dissolution. The profile is structurally distinct from Street’s at the one commitment that matters most for marking the internal divisions of the anti-realist tradition: C5. Street’s constructivism produces C5 Contrary because it rejects correspondence truth as the right standard for moral claims and substitutes truth relative to evaluative standpoint. Joyce’s error theory produces C5 Partially Aligned because it accepts correspondence truth as the standard moral claims purport to meet — and then concludes that all positive moral claims fail to meet it because no objective moral facts exist. This distinction is not merely verbal: it determines whether the framework is intelligible to anyone working within the corpus (error theory is, because it shares the correspondence standard; constructivism is less so, because it replaces the standard itself).
Part B — Dissolution Finding. No Dissolution. C1 and C2 both Non-Operative. The framework leaves the rational subject architecturally undisturbed while denying the objective moral ground his practical reasoning is supposed to reach.
Part C — Agent-Level Implication. An agent who adopts Joyce’s framework accepts that his moral intuitions are evolutionary byproducts calibrated for fitness, that his positive moral claims are all literally false, and that the moral discourse he continues to use in practical life is a fiction whose value is pragmatic rather than truth-tracking. What he is offered in return is a clear-eyed naturalist account of why moral discourse persists and functions despite its systematic falsity, and a fictionalist framework for continuing to use it without self-deception. Sterling’s framework supplies the direct philosophical answer to each element of this account: the faculty calibrated for fitness is, on C1’s account, not exhaustively constituted by its evolutionary history and its deliverances are not fully explained by that history; the moral claims Joyce declares false are, on C5 and C6’s account, the kinds of claims that can be true because objective moral facts exist for them to correspond to; and the fictionalist recommendation — continue the discourse while knowing it is false — is, on Th 7’s account, the precise recommendation to continue forming beliefs one knows to be false, which is the opposite of the discipline of assent the corpus requires.
Corpus boundary. The CPA issues findings on presuppositions embedded in an argumentative record. It does not evaluate the internal consistency of Joyce’s error theory, the success of his fictionalist practical recommendation, or his standing within contemporary metaethics.
Self-Audit Complete: summary follows from Steps 1–3 without new material introduced; the Street/Joyce C5 distinction stated as the structurally significant difference between the two profiles rather than as a technical observation; the fictionalist recommendation’s specific conflict with Th 7 stated precisely in Part C; corpus boundary declared; summary self-contained. CPA run complete.
Theoretical foundations: Grant C. Sterling. Instrument architecture and analysis: Dave Kelly. Prose rendering: Claude.
No comments:
Post a Comment