Metaethics Part 1: Cognitivism/Non-cognitivism

[John 6IX Breezy]

The minute we care to express some reason why god said to do or not do a thing- either from that gods pov or as a feature of reality, we’re giving a cognitivist response.

Hmm why is that so? There's something about the term cognitivist and non-cognitivist that I'm missing here for this to make sense.

And I'm coming at it from the standpoint that we are rationalizing creatures. Meaning that we can come up with a reason for just about anything, no matter how wrong, incoherent, or detached from reality. So if reasons can be irrational it seems to me that something besides having a reason is necessary to qualify as cognitivist.

[The Grand Nudger]

Non cognitivism states that our reasons, objective or subjective, are not the cause of our moral statements. Not for us, not for a god.

If a truth apt statement is the cause of a moral claim, from a god or from us, that would be a cognitivist moral claim.

God said don’t do x, so it’s bad. Non cog.
God said don’t do do x because it’s bad. Cog.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Non cognitivism states that our reasons, objective or subjective, are not the cause of our moral statements. Not for us, not for a god.

If a truth apt statement is the cause of a moral claim, from a god or from us, that would be a cognitivist moral claim.

Is there a metaethical view that doesn't make such blanket statements? I see no reason why it has to be one or the other in such a strict way. Some games have rules that emerge outside of cognition (moral intuitions and biology) and some games have rules that do emerge from reason (legislative rules). And both origins can coexist.

[The Grand Nudger]

At this level? Not really. These are blanket headers for different types of moral systems. They all have dozens of proposals underneath.

(As descriptive theories they all apply, you can be flexible- it’s only as metaethical theories that there are choices to be made)

[The Grand Nudger]

As to how those choices are made, and what it represents when you make them, I have this little rundown I like cracking people up with.

Is it illegal? Is it immoral? Would you do it? Run down that list with a bunch of different examples - almost garaunteed laughs with candid answers, and you'll find that they exclude this or that metaethical theory. You may not end up with a single consistent metaethical position. It would be surprising if anyone did without consideration, but you won't make it very far until most of examples point towards just one. That's your majority report. In many cases, it doesn't actually fit our overall ideology. That's why shame and remorse exist. It's also why shame, remorse, immorality, and illegality strongly correlate to comedy.