However Jorgensen noticed that in ordinary normative reasoning we perform inferences can be accepted as true; such as:. Keep your promises 2. Where at least one of the premises in our case the premise 1. Otherwise it is not possible to apply the notion of logical inference to norms: any normative discourse turns to be illogical as Ayer claimed. The essence of the challenge of non-cognitivism is therefore expressed: how is possible to apply the notion of logical inference whatsoever to the realm of sentences lacking of truth-values?
Stevenson developed another non-cognitivist and subjectivist theory of norms. Therefore, according to Stevenson, ethical terms are instruments used in a cooperative enterprise that leads to a mutual readjustment of human interest. So, when using ethical sentences, we are not using logical inference, but, actually, we are using methods of persuasion.
According to Hare , Stevenson treated what were perlocutionary features of moral language as if they were constitutive of its meaning, and as a result became an irrationalist, because perlocutionary acts are not subject to logical rules.
In other words, an indicative or descriptive sentence is used for telling someone that something is the case; an imperative is not about that — it is used for telling someone to make something the case ibid.
Emotive theories, according to Hare, judge the success of imperative solely by their effects, that is, by whether the person believes or does what we are trying to get him or her to believe or do. Moreover, the rules that define their logical behavior make them universalizable. Another interpretation of the thesis of Universalizability claims that Universalizability is not about the way moral terms function, but it is a principle axiom which is part of any possible normative system as such see Hare, This thesis has been attacked by several authors such as A.
MacIntyre , B. Williams and M. Singer Supervenience is a feature moral sentences share with descriptions too. This issue is discussed also in the philosophy of mind. In moral philosophy, the issue of supervenience concerns the relationship which is said to hold between moral properties and natural or non-moral properties. Alternatively, it is put forward as a claim about a certain feature of moral terms or moral predicates.
For Hare overridingness is a feature, not just of evaluative words, properties, or judgments, but of the wider class of judgments which have to have, at least in some minimal sense, reasons or grounds of explanations Hare, Basically, Hare believes that overridingness and universalizability are similar concepts in that both involve a universal premise such as in the Golden Rule.
From a logical-linguistic point of view, Hare distinguishes in a sentence between a phrastic and a neustic :. Roughly speaking, a phrastic is that component in the sentence we called the descriptive component above, and a neustic is the illocutionary part in a sentence.
According to Hare, logical connectives are part of phrastics; combinations of those connectives are able to create, are valid in the case we deal with normative sentences as well as we deal with descriptive sentences.
It is, indeed, the proper function of these connectives to establish relations between sentences; in other words, the validity of a reasoning depends upon the logical links subsisting among phrastics.
Starting from the 80s there was a renewal of analysis of morals in an emotivist key. These analyses were made by Simon Blackburn and by Allan Gibbard. We will see in the next section how Blackburn can make room for a logic of norms. It applies to the rationality of actions, and it applied to the rationality of beliefs and feelings ibid. For Gibbard, cognitive analyses fail to recognize that judging a behavior as rational means to endorse it; even classical non-cognitivist analyses fails this point as they admit that moral judgment are not feelings, but judgments of what moral feelings it is rational to have.
Feelings we think, can be apt or not, moral judgments are judgments of when guilt and resentment are apt.
The primary function of norms which Gibbard justifies on evolutionary basis is to facilitate the social cooperation, and while true factual sentences are coupled with world representations, normative ones have the function of making social cooperation stable, and not linked to environmental and social changes.
Of course, these will be changing from culture to culture. Finally, Gibbard suggests that normative judgments — because their social function — commit us to adopt higher level norms to encourage social cooperation. For Gibbard, a norm is a significant kind of a psychological state of the mind, which is not fully understandable for us.
The problem was posed in P. In particular, Geach used his own test to attack non-cognitivist claims; in fact, if we find a positive solution to the Geach-Frege Problem we are de facto giving significance to non-cognitivist moral reasoning. On the contrary, if no solution to the problem is provided, the only option left open to moral reasoning is cognitivism or excluding ethics into the realm of rationality likewise radical forms of emotivism such as Ayer.
Briefly, the Frege-Geach problem is that sentences that express moral judgments can form part of semantically complex sentences in a way that an expressivist cannot easily explain. Analogous problems within other kinds of embedded contexts Unwin, This problem is even clearer using modus ponens :.
If tormenting the cat is wrong, then getting your little brother to torment the cat is also wrong 2. Tormenting the cat is wrong Therefore, getting your little brother to torment the cat is wrong. We saw non-cognitivism is characterized by the assumption that norms lack truth-values. Therefore, it seems that this option is not available to non-cognitivists, in general, and in particular to expressivists. Blackburn redefines the Frege-Geach Problem in terms of whether expressive theories can cope with unasserted contexts in such a way as to allow sentences the same meaning within them, as they have when they are asserted.
According to Blackburn, we use evaluative sentences as if they were not different from assertions because of our projective attitude , and, therefore, we intuitively treat them as if they were bearing truth-values and linked to descriptive sentences. The problem will be about the interpretation of connectives to be used to build up more complex commitments having in their own several illocutionary characteristics such as in a conditional.
In other words, it expresses a higher-order attitude , that is, an expression of disapproval or approval toward a combination of attitudes such as of lying. Conditionals, as they are used in ordinary language, show the way we express an endorsement over involvement of commitments — which is expression of a moral standpoint. Where H! If we interpret all the operators in the formula a in an expressive or prescriptive way, that is lacking of truth-values , the whole expression will not make sense.
According to Barcan Marcus , iteration of normative operators looks like stammering. The formula a above, indeed, is formally correct but does not solve the problem about the identity of meaning for example between the antecedent of the 1st conditional in the Modus Ponens shown above which is descriptive and its 2nd sentence which is normative.
The pair constitutes a creedal-normative state completely opinionated Gibbard, , p. According to Gibbard, any particular normative judgment holds or not, as a matter of logic, in the factual-normative world.
That is, the pair is a set of sound and complete norms where, for each possible human behavior, we can state the normative status Forbidden, Obligatory or Indifferent associated with it. In this way each individual can understand the normative qualification of his or her action. Consider a human observer who is uncertain both factually and normatively. When the observer will think about the rightness of a normative judgment, she or he will rule out any possible action which is not included into a set constituted by all the factual elements and all the normative elements in which that normative judgment is valid.
So the prescriptivist will want to say something about our basis for these attributions. An account of the attitude that constitutes accepting a moral judgment will allow them to ground such attributions. One suggestion is that the attitude of accepting a moral judgment involves an intention to do what the judgments recommend. Sincerely accepting a command directed at oneself involves doing it if one is in circumstances where it applies and one is able and otherwise intending to do it should one find oneself in those circumstances Hare , Since moral commands are universal according to the theory, they will be directed at everyone.
Thus anyone who sincerely accepts a moral judgment will be disposed to do what they believe right in circumstances where they can. Less sincere judgments may lack this connection Hare , The issue of which attitude, if any, are involved in accepting a prescription is relevant to some of the arguments over internalism that we will consider below.
Since non-cognitivism is a species of irrealism about ethics, it should be unsurprising that many of its main motivations overlap with those for other versions of ethical irrealism, especially with those for error theories.
Early non-cognitivists seem most concerned to defend metaphysical and epistemic commitments incompatible with a realist interpretation of moral claims. For example, moral judgments seem to be empirically under-determined Ayer , ; Mackie , Hence they fail tests for meaningful discourse proposed by logical positivists. If moral language is meaningful, it would be a counter-example to the view.
Thus early versions of non-cognitivism were proposed by these theorists, not so much because they were interested in moral philosophy but rather to render innocuous a seeming counter-example to their own theories Carnap , 24—27; Ayer , — More contemporary non-cognitivists have also been motivated by similar underlying metaphysical and epistemic commitments.
But they have been as concerned with vindicating the legitimacy of moral practice and argument as with anything else. As a result, they have put more time and energy into explaining, and in a certain sense justifying, the realist-seeming features of moral discourse in the absence of a commitment to realism Hare ; Blackburn , ; Gibbard Yet other sophisticated non-cognitivists, notably Allan Gibbard, have been happy to work under the quasi-realist banner Gibbard , 18— What especially distinguishes the quasi-realist project is an emphasis on explaining why we are entitled to act as if moral judgments are genuinely truth-apt even while strictly speaking they are neither true nor false in any robust sense.
Thus it is a commitment of a quasi-realist that normative judgments are in an important way different from most other paradigm descriptive judgments — enough so to render problematic their status as either true or false — and yet that a justification is nonetheless available for our practices of treating them as if they were in fact so.
What exactly this comes to is hard to say without discussing some of the special problems for non-cognitivism in general, since it is precisely in offering solutions to those problems that the quasi-realist carries out his program.
Thus we will revisit the position later on in the context of these problems. Expressivists of all sorts think that moral sentences are conventional devices for expressing pro and con attitudes towards their objects.
In this broad sense emotivists are expressivists; they agree that moral language functions to express non-cognitive attitudes of various sorts. Such expressivists hold that the meanings of all sentences containing moral terms are determined by the mental states that they serve to express.
For this to work, the sense in which moral sentences express the attitudes which determine their semantic values must be fairly strict and particular. Even so, we should not want to assimilate the semantics of these sentences to one another. Those who have taken up this expressivist program have provided a number of candidates for the attitudes expressed by sentences containing normative terminology.
Simon Blackburn, whose quasi-realist project was briefly described above, has contributed various ideas not only for the states expressed by indicative sentences but also for complex embeddings of moral claims. Hybrid theories that put the expressive function of normative language into the semantics discussed below also involve work of this sort.
But the proponent who has developed the program in the most systematic way is Allan Gibbard. In two influential books Gibbard has proposed two structurally similar accounts each of which employs a different base noncognitive attitude. In Gibbard the attitude was norm-acceptance, whereas in Gibbard it was a planning attitude akin to intending. In each case he develops a strategy for combining the relevant noncognitive attitude with belief to generate complex attitudes that can serve as the semantic values of more complex sentences.
From there he proceeds to reduce other normative judgments into various more particular kinds of judgments of rationality, so that all moral judgments are covered by the proposed analysis. Gibbard suggests that normative judgments express the acceptance of systems of norms — rules dividing actions under naturalistic descriptions into those which are forbidden, permitted and required. And so on Gibbard , So Gibbard suggests we would do better to think of judgments to the effect that an action would be irrational as expressing rejection of any set of norms which does not forbid it.
More precisely, a normative judgment predicating a normative term of a particular action rules out combinations of descriptive judgments concerning the action with norms that either permit, forbid, or require as appropriate actions falling under those descriptions.
The basic idea can be illustrated with an example. A judgment that action A is permissible is incompatible with a pair the first member of which represents A as a lie, and the second member of which is a norm that rules out lying. And it is inconsistent with many more such combinations besides. Given this, we can capture the content of the judgment that action A is permissible by specifying the set of world-norm pairs with which it is incompatible. Gibbard develops his analysis to cover moral judgments by analyzing such judgments in terms of judgments of rationality.
An action is wrong if and only if it fails to meet standards of action the intentional or negligent violation of which in a normal state of mind would be sufficient for finding the agent prima facie blameworthy.
And an action is blameworthy if it would be rational for the agent to feel guilty and for others to resent the agent for doing the action Gibbard , Since the rationality of guilt or resentment receives a non-cognitive analysis, the approach generates a non-cognitive analysis of moral judgments themselves. On the current view, such judgments express the acceptance of plans, or perhaps better they express a state of mind that we might think of as planning to act in this way or that depending on the naturalistic circumstances one finds oneself in.
More complex judgments embedding normative terms express combinations of such attitudes with further attitudes, including ordinary beliefs. Formally they function in much the same way as the world-norm pairs did in the earlier theory. But with the fact-prac worlds apparatus contingency plans take the place of norms as members of the pairs. Once again, judgements will rule out other judgements represented by a set of pairs. The judgment that action A is permissible will be inconsistent with various combinations of factual beliefs with plans.
Each of these combinations can be captured by a world representing a way the world might be together with a second component consisting of a plan, representing a commitment to act that the thinker might have. For example the judgment that action A is permissible will be incompatible with any pair the fact-representing member of which represents action A as a lie, paired with a plan that rules out lying.
And just as a similar idea allowed Gibbard to use sets of norm-world pairs to capture the content of normative judgments, he now can capture the content of a normative judgment by specifying the set of fact-prac worlds with which it is incompatible. When the apparatus is fully developed, the fact representing members of the pairs can once again be thought of as possible worlds insofar as they specify every detail of the world, and the plans are hyper-plans insofar as they have an answer for what to do in every circumstance.
He argues that they would also need to think about what to do from the perspectives of various other people and to formulate plans for arbitrary situations they might find themselves in. If these claims are right, a language might naturally develop in order to make such thinking easier. A planning language modeled by the sets of world-plan pairs would serve very well.
And in actual use it would operate much as our actual normative language does. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that our actual normative language is of this sort. Furthermore conceiving of these attitudes as involving contingency plans for descriptively specifiable circumstances would allow us to explain the supervenience of the moral on the descriptive.
The thoughts represented by the fact-prac world apparatus represent such contingency plans. So the supervenience of the normative on the descriptive falls naturally out of the resulting story Gibbard Often philosophical positions are introduced in rather pure and stark versions, only to be modified in light of arguments and objections so as to become more like competing theories over time. It should not be too surprising that this is the case in metaethics and that present day non-cognitivist theories are less distinguishable from cognitivist alternatives than earlier versions.
It can even be a controversial matter whether theories developed within the non-cognitivist tradition but modified to handle objections still deserve the label. The varieties of emotivism which postulate both descriptive meaning and emotive meaning have sometimes aroused such suspicions and the more developed hybrids discussed at the end of this section are in that tradition.
Furthermore, while paradigm non-cognitivists accept each of the two negative theses outlined above, there are views which accept only one of the two without the other. These positions constitute two metaethical theories which we might think of as borderline cases lying just outside the non-cognitivist region of logical space. Hermeneutic moral fictionalists are not semantic non-factualists.
Moral sentences are regarded as genuinely truth-apt. Such sentences do have truth conditions and an assertive sentence using a moral predicate does predicate a property. Yet, in normal use these sentences are not strictly speaking true. Thus far the hermeneutic fictionalist agrees with error theorists. But while error theorists think that the falsity of moral sentences implies that ordinary moral talk is massively in error, fictionalists disagree.
According to the hermeneutic fictionalist a speaker uttering a false moral sentence is typically not expressing a belief in the content expressed by the sentence.
Rather such speakers are using it fictively, and this use involves no error. Thus, fictionalists are psychological non-cognitivists. Use of a moral sentence does not communicate that the speaker believes the proposition expressed by that sentence. Rather speakers use such sentences to express other, non-cognitive states of mind. Just as with standard versions of non-cognitivism, fictionalists will generally offer a story about the nature of the non-cognitive attitude expressed.
For example, they may suggest that the state of mind is an intention to act as if the moral judgment expressing the intention is true Kalderon b. At the same time, because they are not pursuing the expressivist semantic program the expression relation need not be exactly what ordinary expressivists take it to be. Since they need not require a one—to—one mapping of moral sentences onto states of mind that express them to support their semantic theory, fictionalists can allow for more variation in the states of mind such sentences loosely express.
Hermeneutic fictionalism is often contrasted with revolutionary fictionalism. Revolutionary moral fictionalists think we should reform our current cognitively committed use of normative language to work roughly as the hermeneutic fictionalist thinks we already do Joyce , They are thus not committed to non-cognitivism about actual current use of moral terms in the way that hermeneutic fictionalists seem to be.
Revolutionary fictionalists could be read as proposing that we convert to using moral language to express something other than belief with our indicative moral sentences, but revolutionary fictionalists have not usually presented their reforms in that way.
That should not be too surprising. Fictionalist rejection of semantic nonfactualism leads most taxonomists to omit fictionalism from the non-cognitivist genus. Still at least one prominent hermeneutic fictionalist has presented his view as a version of non-cognitivism Kalderon b drawing on some comments in MacIntyre , 15— The precise content of the view can be difficult to pin down.
Horgan and Timmons challenge a standard Humean division of the mind into a domain of cognitive states which represent the world as being some way and a separate domain of noncognitive states that do not represent the world.
Rather they think there is an important division within the cognitive domain between beliefs that represent the world and beliefs that do not do this but which have non-descriptive but cognitive content. Nondescriptive Cognitivism then holds that moral judgments express such nondescriptive but cognitive states.
Whether this is in fact a distinctive cognitivist position will depend on the best way of dividing up different sorts of mental states.
Some will think that Horgan and Timmons have stipulated a new use for old terms, but they respond by defending phenomenological criteria for dividing cognitive from non-cognitive mental states that justify counting nonrepresentational states among the cognitive. However that debate comes out, it is nevertheless worth noting the view as one which makes trouble for the standard division between cognitivist and non-cognitivist views. Together with fictionalism it illustrates a position which accepts only one of the two negative theses constitutive of standard non-cognitivism.
If such views are coherent this would suggest the two negative theses are logically independent. Hybrid-expressivist theories can be thought of as another sort of borderline case but for a different reason.
These theorists combine the positive claims of expressivism — that moral sentences are conventional devices for the expression of pro-attitudes and that moral attitudes are partly non-cognitive with features of cognitivism — that moral sentences predicate properties and that moral attitudes are partly cognitive.
There are a variety of ways of combining these ideas and various extant theories adopt many of the options. If I know that you are a utilitarian you might convey the information that an action maximizes utility by telling me that it is right. One sort of hybrid theorist incorporates this idea into the semantics of moral expressions. Proponents hope that the view will have advantage in explaining the communication of factual information with moral terms and with handling the embedding problem explained below , while also explaining the motivational efficacy of moral judgements.
A different implementation of the strategy incorporates both components into the semantic values of moral terms, even while the descriptive content is a function of the non-cognitive attitude expressed. More specifically on this way of developing the idea, moral sentences to the effect that something is right semantically both express a proposition — that the action has a particular property — and a particular positive attitude toward that particular property.
The particular property picked out itself depends on the non-cognitive attitudes of the speaker, insofar as the property predicated is the most general property towards which the speaker holds the non-cognitive attitudes expressed by the very same judgement Ridge, a, b, John Eriksson suggests that R.
Hare was an early adopter of this kind of hybrid theory. A contrasting sort of hybrid theory holds the descriptive content of moral predicates constant.
Such views are often modeled on slurs or epithets, as explicated in a certain way. It is plausible and perhaps even standard to think of slurs as semantically expressing a certain descriptive property being a member of such and such a group, say while also conventionally expressing a negative attitude towards those with the property. Copp , and Boisvert suggest that moral terms could function in the same way.
Here again there are various ways to work out the details. Advocates of the approach can note that it has advantages over the previous kind of hybrid theory in explaining communication insofar as the descriptive content remains fixed from speaker to speaker Schroeder And they claim that the view does so without undermining the standard hybrid explanation of the motivational efficacy of moral judgements.
As the literature develops hybrid views get more complicated and subtle. Close relatives of these theories claim to elude objections directed at each of the above variants and yet the resulting theories are probably best understood as developments of these simpler variants Schroeder ;Toppinen Perhaps hardest to characterize as a species of non-cognitivism are the claims of several recent theorists who suggest that non-cognitivism is best understood as a metasemantic theory.
One motivation for the view seems to be that it allows noncognitivists to take advantage of ordinary semantic theories and hence avoid the embedding problem. It is at least worth thinking about which of the standard motivations for non-cognitivism in ethics support the view when it is construed as a metasemantic theory.
Chances are the literature will take up such questions in the near future and subsequent versions of this entry will say more about the developments to come. Non-cognitivism is motivated by a number of considerations, most rooted in metaphysics, the philosophy of mind or epistemology. At the beginning of the 20th Century, G. The question of whether the action or object so described was good or right was always open, even to competent speakers.
Furthermore, in the absence of any systematic theory to explain the possibility of synthetic as opposed to analytic identity claims, many were convinced that this showed that moral properties could not be identified with any natural or supernatural properties. Thus Moore and others concluded that moral properties such as goodness were irreducible sui generis properties, not identical to natural properties Moore , The non-naturalists, however, had neglected another option consistent with the thought underlying the open question argument.
Perhaps moral predicates did not refer to properties at all, and perhaps their meaning was not analyzable in non-moral descriptive terms not because they referred to irreducibly moral properties but because, despite appearances, they were not referring expressions at all. In other words, semantic nonfactualism about moral terms entails that questions of the sort highlighted by Moore could not be closed by any amount of competence with the expressions used to ask them because the expressions in question are not in fact equivalent.
Thus non-cognitivists could argue that moral expressions used in such open questions did not function to represent anything or to predicate any property and as such were not equivalent to any descriptive or referring expressions. Rather they merely served to convey emotion Ogden and Richards , Speakers to whom such questions seemed open were tacitly aware of this difference in function and hence not in a position to equate moral expressions with descriptive expressions.
Contemporary philosophers recognize the possibility that sentences that express identities might be synthetic as opposed to analytic or true by definition. We can discover that water is the same stuff as H 2 O without being able to infer it from the meanings of the terms involved Kripke ; Putnam a.
Yet many contemporary defenders of non-cognitivism suggest that the open question argument still provides ammunition for their claims. Even if we cannot infer from the openness of a question that the referents of two terms used to ask that question are distinct, we might still have reason to think that the two expressions do not mean the same thing.
Thus non-cognitivists have used the open question argument to suggest that moral terms contain a normative element completely lacking in descriptive terms and which should be cashed out along the lines that the non-cognitivists favor. The non-cognitivist is in a position to explain this, insofar as her positive proposal for the functioning of moral terms will suggest they do more than merely describe the world. She will say that moral terms essentially express a positive attitude, or function to commend.
Purely descriptive terms do not. Nothing can be the conclusion of a valid argument which is not already implicit in the premises. Thus descriptive claims cannot entail the extra expressive or imperatival component that according to the non-cognitivist is part of the meaning of moral terms Hare , 32— There are of course many ways to resist these arguments. Perhaps moral expressions are analytically equivalent to naturalistic expressions, but these analyticities are themselves not obvious even to competent speakers Lewis , This may be because no analyticities are obvious, or it may be because moral analyses in particular are especially complex.
One moral that could be drawn from the history of Twentieth Century analytic philosophy is that if there are any analyticities, competent speakers can question them. This is the paradox of analysis. If any definition can be questioned by a competent speaker, and we think there are at least some definitions sufficient to underwrite analytic truths, then the mere fact that a speaker can doubt a candidate analysis may not tell against that analysis.
An equivalence could be analytic because competent speakers tacitly respect it, for the most part acting as if the equivalence is true Lewis , It has been suggested that moral concepts are role concepts analogous to the concepts of various mental states as conceived by functionalists. The idea is that commonsense morality embodies a theory of morality which specifies the ways in which various moral properties rightness, wrongness, goodness, badness, fairness, etc.
When we put all of the claims of the commonsense theory together it specifies a role that each property must play in terms of the other properties it relates to. The role concept so-specified for each term might then be the concept of the referent of that term Jackson and Pettit If so we should expect such concepts to be quite complex.
And their complexity might make it hard to recognize the adequacy of any analysis, even for speakers who tacitly respect the equivalence so defined. There may be a problem for those more sophisticated forms of non-cognitivism according to which moral terms have both descriptive and prescriptive or expressive meaning when these are coupled with reliance on the Open Question Argument.
Suppose that the postulated extra expressive or prescriptive component in moral terms explains why competent speakers would not equate moral terms with descriptive analyses of them and that it also explains why we cannot validly infer a moral conclusion from non-moral premises. If moral terms have descriptive meaning in addition to their non-cognitive element one should be able to validly argue in the other direction. The problem is that competent speakers are just as likely to wonder about the validity of such inferences as they are to wonder about those going from descriptive premises to normative conclusions.
If the openness of such questions to competent speakers is sufficient to refute claims of meaning equivalence, it should here refute theories which include descriptive meanings in an otherwise non-cognitive analysis. If the arguments that lead non-cognitivists to postulate descriptive meaning are sufficiently compelling it seems they should not rely on the open question argument to support their views.
Woods presses a related worry against even non-hybrid non-cognitivist theories. If the conventional function of moral terms is to express attitudes, it should seem Moore-paradoxical that is pragmatically incoherent to deny that one approves of the things one believes good or right.
Naturalism in metaphysics has been on the ascendancy for some time, though it is often somewhat difficult to ascertain exactly what the position amounts to. Usually naturalism is taken to rule out at least the existence of supernatural entities or properties. And one standard way that naturalists have defended their position has been to reduce seemingly mysterious properties or objects which might appear to be non-natural to more familiar purportedly natural properties.
That is, they have tried to show that these objects or entities are nothing over and above some set of natural properties or objects appropriately arranged. One strategy is to identify seemingly suspect properties with natural properties, either via connecting definitions or through synthetic identities. Many naturalists have taken this approach to moral properties Firth ; Railton ; Boyd Non-cognitivism is not a form of reductive naturalism about the contents of moral judgments, beliefs and sentences.
It does not equate the property seemingly predicated in such judgments with any natural property, precisely because it denies that the primary function of such expressions is to predicate properties. But in another good sense non-cognitivists are naturalists. They offer a reduction of the attitude of accepting a moral judgment to a perfectly naturalistic sort of attitude such as the attitude of approval or disapproval. And they do not postulate any properties which cannot be reduced to natural properties.
Thus another motivation for accepting non-cognitivism has been naturalism. If someone doubts the prospects for reducing moral properties to natural properties perhaps under the influence of the open question argument , they need not concede that there are any extra-natural or supernatural properties. One can simply reinterpret even the moral judgments one accepts as predicating no properties at all.
Or, as with the more sophisticated versions of non-cognitivism, one can allow them to predicate natural properties and argue that the appearance that they do something other than this is due to the additional expressive component in their meaning.
Many non-cognitivists have argued for their theories based on motivational internalist premises. Motivational internalists believe that there is some sort of conceptual or necessary connection between moral judgments on the one hand and motivations to act on the other. The nature of the connection is a matter of some dispute and theorists have suggested and refuted a variety of candidates Hare , 20; Brink , 37ff. Non-cognitivists have often supported their theory by arguing from versions of judgment internalism, which postulate a necessary connection between accepting a moral judgment on the one hand and being motivated to act on it on the other Stevenson ; Hare ; Blackburn ; Gibbard This sort of internalism is controversial, so that leading non-cognitivists have had both to defend judgment internalism and to argue that their favored theory should be accepted as the best explanation of the sort of internalism they attempt to vindicate.
You can find defenses of various versions of judgment internalism which support somewhat different but still necessary connections between accepting or uttering a moral judgment on the one hand and being motivated on the other. One version makes the connection very tight — if one accepts a judgment one is motivated to do what it says we ought to do.
Depending on which version a theorist defends, different versions of non-cognitivism can explain the necessity of the connection, although not all versions can be easily explained using non-cognitivist resources. One can only sincerely use that expression when one has the attitude just as one can only sincerely cheer for some team or person if one has a positive attitude towards them. On the other hand, this easy explanation of the strong internalist thesis has liabilities. Such strong internalism may be too strong to be credible insofar as it rules out amoralists — those who accept moral judgments without being at all motivated to do what they recommend.
If so, simple emotivism of the sort described is refuted because the sincerity conditions for making the judgment require the motivation not present in the amoralist.
Examples such as the amoralist have led internalists to posit more moderate, defeasible, but still necessary connections between moral judgments and motivation Korsgaard ; Dreier ; Smith More complex versions of non-cognitivism can make the connection with actual motivation looser and thereby withstand the amoralist challenge. But not every more moderate internalist principle will be easily explained by a corresponding non-cognitivist theory. Some versions of moderate internalism require that rational people will be motivated in accordance with their own moral judgments Smith , On any theory where the acceptance of a moral judgment is constituted by the acceptance of a non-cognitive attitude, it should be the case that those who genuinely hold the judgment have the attitude.
This should apply to the irrational as well as the rational. Other responses to the amoralist are available consistent with non-cognitivism. One such response is not to accept a defeasible version of internalism, but rather to claim that amoralists do not have genuine moral beliefs.
Many cognitivists have not found this a persuasive characterization of all amoralists Brink , 46—7. For example, one can apologize without feeling sorry or actually caring about what is at issue Joyce But it is not so easy to see how to carry this over to the treatment of accepting a moral judgment in the absence of uttering a moral sentence.
Even if one can sincerely apologize without having any special feeling or attitude as one does so, it seems we would not say of a person that they were sorry unless they had such an attitude. Thus the analogy with apology only takes us so far. He suggests an example in which our translation practices seem to indicate that when we use moral words from our home language to translate words and concepts from another language, what is most important to us is that native users of the language or concepts generally use them to guide choice and action Hare , —9.
If this is right, it establishes a connection of the following form: Necessarily the acceptance of a moral judgment will normally incline society members to do what is recommended by that judgment. This version will require an intention to act or something similar in most people much of the time, but it will not require such an intention from everybody all of the time. The argument thus supports a version of moderate internalism.
And, according to Hare, people who utter general commands that are directed at themselves will normally but not invariably act in accordance with those commands Hare , But, insofar as Hare also suggests that accepting a command directed at oneself requires an intention to act accordingly Hare , 20 , he seems committed to a closer connection between moral judgment and motivating states than the Missionaries and Cannibals Argument vindicates.
Thus far we have been considering internalism as a reason to accept non-cognitivism based on a sort of inference to the best explanation. Insofar as non-cognitivism can explain the connection between normative or moral judgments and motivation we have some reason to accept it. But the explanations so far have relied on the positive part of non-cognitivism — the part that connects the meanings of moral terms to commendation or the expression of attitudes.
The denial of cognitivism so far has played no role. Since the expressivist or prescriptivist component of non-cognitivist theories does not by itself entail the denial of cognitivism, a cognitivist could take them on board and explain a species of internalism just as non-cognitivists do Copp There is, however, a popular non-cognitivist strategy for arguing that they are uniquely placed to explain judgment internalism.
This strategy proceeds from the Humean idea that belief alone is incapable of motivating action. The Humean Theory of Motivation, as it has come to be known, postulates that motives must always be composed of desires for some end, possibly along with some relevant means-ends belief Hume , ; Smith The theory is supposed to rule out any state of mind which both qualifies as a cognitive state and which would be sufficient to motivate action by itself without supplementation from some independent desire.
If moral judgments necessarily motivate, even in the absence of further desires, the theory seems to entail that they cannot be genuine beliefs.
They must be conative rather than cognitive states, or at the very least be composites to which the non-cognitive component is essential.
Even if beliefs are also constituents of the judgment, those beliefs will not be identical to it, since they can persist in the absence of motivation while the moral judgments necessitate motives Blackburn , 97— This argument too can be resisted by cognitivists. It presupposes a particularly strong version of internalism. If the nature of the necessary connection between moral judgments and motives is of a defeasible kind, it will be possible for someone to accept the judgment while remaining unmotivated Korsgaard ; Dreier ; Smith And even a stronger version of judgment internalism might be consistent with various subjectivist cognitivist theories, especially those which relativize the truth of moral judgments to individual agents.
Such theories can make the truth conditions for the judgments include the presence of certain attitudes in the speaker and claim that speakers are highly accurate in tracking that part of their truth conditions Harman ; Dreier Furthermore, despite its lofty pedigree, the Humean Theory of Motivation is itself subject to dispute Bromwich ; Dancy ; Darwall ; Nagel ; McDowell ; Swartzer , ; van Roojen , It is relatively common ground among moral theorists that moral properties supervene on non-moral properties.
Two items cannot differ in their moral properties without differing in some non-moral property as well. Or to put the point in terms more suited to the non-cognitivist, virtually all agree that it is inappropriate to treat two items as morally distinguishable without believing that they are also distinguishable in some other way. Corporate Law. Criminal Law. Florida Bar Exam. Insurance Law. Intellectual Property. International Law. Legal Studies. Pharmacy Law.
Property Law. Real Estate Law. Texas Bar Exam. Alternative Medicine. Health Class. Health Science. Human Development. Mental Health. Public Health.
ACE Health Coach. Real Estate. Computer Programming. Computer Science. Graphic Design. Information Security. Information Technology. Management Information Systems. Culinary Arts. Art History. Other Fine Arts. Cultural Literacy. Knowledge Rehab. National Capitals. People You Should Know. Sports Trivia. Flashcards in Cognitivism and Non-cognitivism Deck Loading flashcards What is cognitivism?
Cognitivism in ethics is the view that moral judgements are propositions which can be known—they refer to the world and they have a truth value true or false. There are moral truths and we can know what they are. Give four arguments for cognitivism. If so, we must have moral standards in order for us to measure this progress. We wouldn't bother arguing about opinions.
However, cognitivists say there is some form of similarity between cultures. This is common in pretty much every language. Give two moral realist theories? Ethical Naturalism-Moral truths are natural facts 2.
Ethical Non-naturalism-Moral truths describe non-natural facts. What is moral realism? Moral realists believe moral terms relate to something real. Moral statements are factually significant.
Give two moral realist theories. What is ethical naturalism? Wrong exists in the world and can be known through measurement and observation. Ethical naturalism states that what is GOOD is some natural i.
It is a cognitivist and a realist theory. What are the three versions of ethical naturalism? There are three versions: 1. Utilitarianism: What is good: Overall Happiness What is right: You ought to do what maximises happiness overall 3. Virtue Ethics: What is good: Human flourishing What is right: You should foster human flourishing Ethical naturalism is an inductive argument.
Questions: Is naturalism a reductive argument? Does it reduce morality to natural terms? What is Ethical Non-Naturalism. Wrongness exists in the world and moral judgements are intuitive common sense so do not need justification. Ethical non-naturalism states that moral truths describe non-natural facts, such as intuitionism. Perhaps the answer is we just do. Moral judgements are intuitive or self-evident, thus, they need no justification.
What is The Open Question Argument? However, it will always makes sense to ask: Is X really good? This question makes sense and we would want to ask it if an innocent person was being punished on utilitarian grounds.
For Moore, we can always pose the question: Is X really good? So it remains and open question whether it is really good or not. Finally, Moore states that good is undefinable.
0コメント