Cognitivism and Non-cognitivism

Question 1

What is cognitivism?

Answer 1

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

Question 2

Give four arguments for cognitivism.

Answer 2

Arguments for cognitivism:
• Is there moral progress? If so, we must have moral standards in order for us to measure this progress.
• We have moral disputes where we seem to be talking about facts. We wouldn’t bother arguing about opinions.
• It’s relative to different cultures. However, cognitivists say there is some form of similarity between cultures.
• Moral language- when we have moral disputes we say ‘killing IS wrong’. This ‘is’ insists a realness. This is common in pretty much every language.

Question 3

Give two moral realist theories?

Answer 3

1. Ethical Naturalism-Moral truths are natural facts

2. Ethical Non-naturalism-Moral truths describe non-natural facts

Question 4

What is moral realism?

Answer 4

Moral realists believe moral terms relate to something real. Moral statements are factually significant.

Question 5

Give two moral realist theories.

Answer 5

1. Ethical Naturalism-Moral truths are natural facts

2. Ethical Non-naturalism-Moral truths describe non-natural facts

Question 6

What is ethical naturalism?

Answer 6

Wrong exists in the world and can be known through measurement and observation. Ethical naturalism states that what is GOOD is some natural (i.e. natural sciences/ experience=source of knowledge of it) property. It is a cognitivist and a realist theory.

Question 7

What are the three versions of ethical naturalism?

Answer 7

There are three versions:

1. Ethical Egoism:
   What is good: Your own happiness/benefit
   What is right: You ought to do what benefits you
2. 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. It won’t be proved beyond all doubt.
Questions: Is naturalism a reductive argument? Does it reduce morality to natural terms?

Question 8

What is Ethical Non-Naturalism

Answer 8

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. If naturalism is wrong and we can’t reduce moral terms to natural ones, then how do we come to make moral judgements? Perhaps the answer is we just do. Moral judgements express such basic truths that they don’t need justification. Moral judgements are intuitive or self-evident, thus, they need no justification.

Question 9

What is The Open Question Argument? (argument for ethical non-naturalism)

Answer 9

Moore says ‘good’ is either indefinable, definable or means nothing at all and there is no subject such as ethics. He immediately rejects the third option as it is ‘short shrift’. Moore says that any theory attempting to define good is saying something equivalent to: ‘Good’ means X. 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. Therefore, this must mean that ‘good’ and maximising happiness are not the same. 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.

Question 10

What is The ‘yellow’ argument?

argument for ethical non-naturalism

Answer 10

Yellow is indefinable. It is not light travelling at X frequency, because if you said this to a blind person they would not be able too see yellow. Yellow is what we see when we see real objects. It cannot be defined in terms of anything else. This does not mean that yellow does not exist.
Good is the same. Good is not what maximises happiness etc. You would not be able to describe good to a psychopath. Good is what we ‘see’ when we see good objects/ things. Good cannot be defined in terms of anything else. This doesn’t mean good doesn’t exist.
To conclude, both good and yellow cannot be defined. They are indefinable but they do both exist.

Question 11

What is The Naturalistic Fallacy?

argument for ethical non-naturalism

Answer 11

Firstly, Moore thinks that good is indefinable, and any attempts to define it are pointless. According to Moore good is un-natural so you cannot describe it in naturalistic terms
Mill says that everyone pursues pleasure. Moore criticises Mill by saying that he tries to define good in naturalistic terms. This is the naturalistic fallacy: Mill’s argument is wrong because he has tried to define good in naturalistic terms.
However, Mary Warnock responds by saying that this is not true. Mill says that everyone pursues pleasure. If killing caused pleasure for the majority people would pursue killing; this would make killing good. Mill is actually making an empirical claim. People desire pleasure, so they consider it to be good. He is not defining it as being good, he just says that people find it good.

Question 12

What is Moore’s ideals and intuitions?
(argument for ethical non-naturalism)
Give one criticism of this.

Answer 12

Moore has established that good cannot be defined and that we cannot know what is good by analyzing it in naturalistic terms, but by our discriminating intuitive faculty.
An intuition is a belief that is not based on or justified by any other belief. They are not subjective to feelings or emotions; intuitions are of external reality. They are also not culturally determined as they are too universal for that. Neither are they invented or constructed.
• Moore believes that common sense and ordinary beliefs should be taken at face value.
• Moral intuitions are not so different from ordinary perceptual/rational judgements.
• Moral beliefs as judgements are about mind-independent moral reality.
• Moral reality cannot be reduced to anything else.
The PROBLEMS with Moore’s intuitions argument is that it is too simplistic and naive. It doesn’t consider disagreements of those who don’t see that, for example, killing for fun is wrong. It is also dogmatic, as it suggests no way to determine ‘right’ intuitions and it presupposes the mysterious

Question 13

What is error theory? Give an explanation and response to it.

Answer 13

Wrongness is in the brain and is caused by societal beliefs. There aren’t any mind-independent truths.
There is a 3rd theory which is cognitivist called Error Theory, which opposes intuitionism. Error theory states that ethical claims describe mind independent truths-but there aren’t any. Moral language describes moral facts but moral claims are all false. Ethics is based on an erroneous us of language (Boris is big/Boris is bad example). Error theory has two strands; the argument from relativity and the argument from queerness.
Argument from relativity
It is more plausible to suggest that different moral values reflect different ways of life rather than some groups having distorted or inadequate perceptions of moral reality. There are well-known variations in moral codes between societies. Disagreements on morals can’t be about facts, it must be about something else. It is more plausible to suggest moral values come from the society you come from.
Society believes killing is bad - causes - Killing is bad
Variations in moral codes between societies are better explained by the fact that values reflect ways of life, rather than different perceptions.
OBJECTION: An objection to this theory is that beneath the differences there are basic agreements about right and wrong.
RESPONSE: Mackie responds by saying this would have to assume that objective values ‘cause’ our moral beliefs (Argument from queerness)

Question 14

What is the argument from queerness? (response to error theory objection)

Answer 14

The argument from queerness has two issues. The METAPHYSICAL issue states that objective values would be ‘queer’ entities. The EPISTEMOLOGICAL issue is that we would have to have a special ‘moral faculty’ to know about them.

Question 15

What is non-cognitivism?

Answer 15

Non-cognitivism is the view that moral judgements cannot be known, because they do not say anything true or false about the world. There are no moral truths and we have moral knowledge.

Question 16

What is emotivism? (non-cognitivist theory where there are no moral truths but we can have moral knowledge)

Answer 16

Wrongness does not describe any mind independent phenomenon but simply expresses an emotional response to the world.
Emotivism tends to be an empirical approach to ethics. It is often seen as being a reaction against intuitionism. It was initially presented by A.J.Ayer, a philosopher who believed that for a statement to be counted as meaningful it must pass the verification principle.
A SENTENCE IS MEANINGFUL IFF: IT IS A TAUTOLOGY OR IT IS EMPIRICALLY VERIFIABLE
Ayer believed that concepts such as ‘good’ and ‘right’ are ‘pseudo-concepts’ (ie. they dont refer to anything at all). Therefore, if they do not refer to property of the real world then moral judgements are nor propositions Ergo, they are not capable of being classified as true or false. According to the verification principle, moral judgements are meaningless. Ayer continues by saying that moral terms are simply moral utterances which express our emotional responses. Emotivism is sometimes referred to as the ‘Boo/Hoorah’ theory as we say boo at things we don’t like and hoorah at things we do.
“Killing is wrong” = “Boo to killing”
Stevenson went a step further than Ayer as he analysed the emotive meaning of moral judgements. He thought that moral judgements were not just expressive, but they also attempted to influence other people to feel the same way as you do.
“Killing is wrong” (EXPRESSIVE)
+
“Agree with me about ‘boo to killing’” (PERSUASIVE)
Stevenson is able to give an account for why moral terms seem to motivate us or guide our actions. They do so like someone shouting or urging us to do something. We are motivated by the emotion behind the word.
Emotivism opposes intuitionism as moral propositions are not descriptive or informative; they are designed to influence other people’s behaviours by conveying emotion.

Question 17

Give four advantages of emotivism.

Answer 17

• There is no ‘mysterious’ faculty of intuition needed. It is simpler (Ockham’s razor)
• There is no mysterious intrinsically motivating non-physical entity
• Stevenson explains the force behind moral utterances, possibly making it stronger than error theory? It explains why we are motivated to act.
• It explains how moral disputes are possible. Disputes are not simply about facts but instead about feelings.

Question 18

Give five criticisms of emotivism.

Answer 18

• Is ‘gut feeling’ a strong enough foundation for ethics? Can you make a reasonable judgement based on someone’s feelings or emotions?
• If part of morality is persuasive, then surely torture would be acceptable in order to change someone’s emotional response if it only their emotion that matters.
• Is it possible to give a moral opinion without being involved? (Mr Lee’s photo with Jesus)
• Being dispassionate and objective is surely part of morality?
• The verification principle does not pass its own test.

Question 19

What is prescriptivism? (non-cognitivist theory where there are no moral truths but we can have moral knowledge)

Answer 19

The real use of moral judgments is to issue recommendations about how people should act.
Moral judgments are meant to guide action and urge everyone to act similar.
R.M. Hare was the foremost philosopher when it comes to prescriptivism. Hare focused almost entirely on meta-ethics and the meaning of ethical terms. Hare’s prescriptivism is often seen as a development of emotivism. It further explores the uses and purpose that moral judgements have in day to day dialogue. It explains how moral judgements are not simply expressions of language. Prescriptivism states they have a much more important use; to tell others how they ought to act.
Take the example of “do not cheat”. This is just another way of saying “don’t cheat, please”. When you accept the judgement that cheating is wrong and that people ought not to cheat you committing yourself to live by this prescription. The (My) moral judgement that you ought not to do X is meant to guide you action, not in the sense that you must necessarily do X but instead if you are accepting the judgment you are then committed to doing X; not doing X shows that you have rejected the judgement.
There is also a sense of universability in Hare’s moral theory, that you must act in such a way as to be able to universalise the principle of your action, allowing it to be a universal law. Hare’s principle of universability says that it is necessary and sufficient condition of any moral judgement that one would impartially enjoin the same principle in any case of the same kind as the one in question. In making a moral judgement, one must be able to say that another would make the same judgment in a similar case.
To summarise, prescriptivism says that ethical terms do not ascribe properties and their meaning is not factual, but rather signifies universal prescriptions. Ethical judgments are not factually, intuitively or rationally justifiable but are existentially justified.

Question 20

Give three criticisms of prescriptivism.

Answer 20

• Warnock questions if it is plausible to suppose that all moral disagreements are concerned with telling people what to do. Hare restricts his theory and it appears that he thinks that when one person makes a moral judgement they can only be doing it in a prescriptive way. What about confessional moral statements?
• If moral judgements are our personal prescriptions about how we should behave, then what are the standards against which our personal prescriptions should be judged?
• The theory appears to say that as long as one is consistent in putting forward horrific judgements, then their consistency makes the judgement a moral one. However, consistently wanting to kill babies doesn’t make it moral.