Correctness, Error and Normative Freedom

Abstract

This paper argues that the possibility of error condition, often repeated in philosophical discussions of normativity, ought not to be read so as to posit or presuppose that there pre-exist or exist implicitly rules, norms or standards (or any kind of normative requirements) that always and already demarcate and determine what is and what could be correct and mistaken. The paper begins with a discussion of important papers on correctness, error and normative freedom, including papers by Douglas Lavin, Peter Railton, Robert Brandom and Paul Roth. It shows, inter alia, how the search for a concept of normative freedom in these papers is thwarted by too narrow a reading of the possibility of error condition. The final part of the paper shows how a rich concept of normative freedom can emerge from the above less narrow reading of the possibility of error condition.