RE: Metaethics Part 1: Cognitivism/Non-cognitivism
February 11, 2022 at 2:13 pm
(This post was last modified: February 11, 2022 at 2:46 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(February 11, 2022 at 10:41 am)GrandizerII Wrote: I feel like the divide between cognitivist and non-cognitivist is illusory. Emotivism doesn't seem to be meaningfully separate from error theory, for example. Per my understanding.
Error theory in metaethics is the position that for some reason, or no reason at all, we always get it wrong. It's usually applied to some other theory to make a more narrow claim.
Emotivism is the idea that even though we might be expressing our moral claims as facts or opinions, they're neither thing. Bad is just the sads. Good is just the happys. Etc.
Cognitivism - that moral claims are the kind of claims that can be true or false statements.
Non cognitivism - that moral claims are not the kind of claims that can be true or false statements.
Some fun examples of the difference.
X is bad because it does cause harm. Cognitivist. Objectivist.
I believe that X causes harm, therefore it is bad. Cognitivist. Subjectivist
People in my society assert that x causes harm, therefore it is bad. Cognitivist. Relativist.
"Yuck!" Non Cognitivist. Emotivist.
Thou shalt not kill. Theological non-cognitivist. Prescriptivist.
It's illegal to kill. Secular non-cognitivist. Imperativist.
It might be that any given moral theory is incomplete...but, imo, alot of the time when people think that some given moral theory doesn't describe all moral propositions it comes down to moral systems as they are being of hybrid construction. Historically, we've taken a bit of a bunch of different sets. Thou shalt not kill, plus it's illegal to kill, plus killing is wrong, plus you shouldn't want to kill. The Big Ones, (alleged) moral propositions which you can find in every society at all times, generally boil down to things that can be established in multiple concurrent ways.
If you can identify something that most people don't like, whose prohibition is useful to society, that people feel religiously about, that accords with their apprehension, which can (at least be argued to be) established as a fact - it's completely certain that this thing will be called "wrong" no matter what it is. It could be kittens. Kittens are bad. The literal worst.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
