Moral Non-Cognitivism

Definition

Moral non-cognitivism is the view that moral statements, such as 'stealing is wrong,' are not truth-apt and do not express beliefs about objective moral facts. Instead, they express non-cognitive attitudes like emotions, preferences, or imperatives.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Moral non-cognitivism challenges the idea that moral judgments can be objectively true or false, arguing they are expressions of subjective attitudes or preferences.
2. Non-cognitivists believe that moral language is fundamentally different from descriptive, fact-stating language, and cannot be reduced to factual claims.
3. Emotivists, a type of non-cognitivist, claim that moral statements merely express the speaker's emotions or attitudes, rather than beliefs about moral facts.
4. Prescriptivists, another type of non-cognitivist, argue that moral statements express imperatives or prescriptions about how one ought to act, not factual claims.
5. Moral non-cognitivism has important implications for the role of reason in ethics, as it challenges the view that moral judgments can be rationally justified or disputed.

Review Questions

• Explain how moral non-cognitivism challenges the traditional view of moral judgments as truth-apt.
  • Moral non-cognitivism challenges the traditional view that moral judgments, such as 'stealing is wrong,' can be objectively true or false. Non-cognitivists argue that these statements do not express beliefs about moral facts, but rather non-cognitive attitudes like emotions, preferences, or imperatives. This means moral language is fundamentally different from descriptive, fact-stating language and cannot be reduced to factual claims. Non-cognitivists believe moral judgments are expressions of subjective attitudes rather than beliefs about objective moral reality.
• Describe the key differences between moral cognitivism and moral non-cognitivism.
  • The main difference between moral cognitivism and moral non-cognitivism is their view on the nature of moral statements. Moral cognitivists believe that moral judgments can be true or false, expressing beliefs about objective moral facts. In contrast, moral non-cognitivists argue that moral statements do not express beliefs, but rather non-cognitive attitudes like emotions, preferences, or imperatives. Cognitivists see moral language as similar to descriptive, fact-stating language, while non-cognitivists believe moral language is fundamentally different and cannot be reduced to factual claims. This has important implications for the role of reason in ethics and whether moral judgments can be rationally justified.
• Evaluate the implications of moral non-cognitivism for moral philosophy and the possibility of moral knowledge.
  • If moral non-cognitivism is true, it would significantly undermine traditional approaches to moral philosophy and the possibility of moral knowledge. Non-cognitivism challenges the view that moral judgments can be objectively true or false, arguing they are expressions of subjective attitudes rather than beliefs about moral facts. This calls into question the role of reason in ethics and whether moral claims can be rationally justified. Non-cognitivism also raises doubts about whether genuine moral knowledge is possible, since if moral statements do not express beliefs, they cannot be known in the same way as factual claims. Overall, moral non-cognitivism presents a radical challenge to the foundations of moral philosophy and the very nature of morality itself.

Related terms

Moral Cognitivism: The view that moral statements can be true or false, expressing beliefs about objective moral facts.

Emotivism:

A form of moral non-cognitivism which holds that moral statements express emotions or attitudes rather than beliefs.

Prescriptivism:

A form of moral non-cognitivism which holds that moral statements express imperatives or prescriptions rather than beliefs.