Non-cognitivism is a metaethical view that moral statements or judgments do not express propositions that are capable of being true or false. Instead, non-cognitivists argue that moral language is used to express emotions, attitudes, or prescriptions rather than objective facts about the world.
congrats on reading the definition of Non-cognitivism. now let's actually learn it.
Non-cognitivism challenges the idea that moral statements can be objectively true or false, arguing that they serve different functions such as expressing emotions or issuing prescriptions.
Non-cognitivists contend that moral language is not used to describe a realm of objective moral facts, but rather to influence behavior and shape social norms.
Emotivism, a form of non-cognitivism, holds that moral statements merely express the speaker's feelings or attitudes rather than making claims about objective moral reality.
Expressivism, another variant of non-cognitivism, suggests that moral statements reflect the speaker's own commitments and do not describe independent moral facts.
Non-cognitivism has implications for moral reasoning and debates, as it challenges the idea that moral disagreements can be settled through rational argumentation about objective moral truths.
Review Questions
Explain the central claim of non-cognitivism and how it differs from cognitivist metaethical views.
The central claim of non-cognitivism is that moral statements or judgments do not express propositions that are capable of being true or false. Non-cognitivists argue that moral language is used to express emotions, attitudes, or prescriptions rather than objective facts about the world. This contrasts with cognitivist metaethical views, which hold that moral statements can be true or false based on their correspondence with an objective moral reality.
Describe the key variants of non-cognitivism, such as emotivism and expressivism, and how they differ in their specific claims about the function of moral language.
Emotivism is a form of non-cognitivism that holds that moral statements merely express the speaker's feelings or attitudes, rather than making claims about objective moral facts. Expressivism, another variant of non-cognitivism, suggests that moral statements reflect the speaker's own commitments and do not describe independent moral truths. While both emotivism and expressivism reject the cognitivist view that moral statements can be objectively true or false, they differ in their specific claims about the function of moral language, with emotivism focusing on the expression of emotions and expressivism emphasizing the reflection of personal commitments.
Analyze the implications of non-cognitivism for moral reasoning and debates, particularly in terms of how it challenges the idea that moral disagreements can be settled through rational argumentation about objective moral facts.
Non-cognitivism has significant implications for moral reasoning and debates. If moral statements do not express objective facts about the world, but rather serve to express emotions, attitudes, or prescriptions, then the traditional approach to moral reasoning based on the identification and defense of objective moral truths becomes problematic. Non-cognitivists argue that moral disagreements cannot be settled through rational argumentation about objective moral facts, as there are no such facts to be discovered. Instead, moral debates may be better understood as conflicts of emotions, attitudes, or personal commitments, rather than as attempts to discern objective moral reality. This challenges the cognitivist view that moral progress can be achieved through rigorous moral philosophy and debate.
The view that moral statements express emotions or attitudes rather than objective facts.
Expressivism: The view that moral statements express or reflect the speaker's own attitudes, feelings, or commitments rather than objective moral facts.