The Pros And Cons Of Ethical Noncognitivism

1258 Words6 Pages
Defend ethical noncognitivism against the objections raised in class. The question of morality has been circulating through the minds of men since our development of a conscious; we all have claims about what we believe is morally wrong or right. In an attempt to define morality and its limitations, philosophers have come up with a concept known as “Ethical Noncognitivism.” Proponents of ethical noncognitivism put forth the idea that ethical sentences to do not express propositions, and therefore cannot hold any truth value. When people make a moral claim, such as “stealing is bad,” they are in effect saying “boo, stealing.” In order to better understand ethical noncognitivism, we will begin by grasping its origins, thoroughly defining, offering principle varieties that have stemmed out of ethical noncognitivism, and critically analyzing various objections. Before we can further discussion of noncognitivism, we must establish its basis, irrealism. Irrealism is a position first put forth by philosopher Nelson Goodman in "Ways of Worldmaking". Initially motivated by the epistemological debate between phenomenalism and physicalism, Goodman described these terms as alternative "world-versions”; neither capable of capturing the other in a completely satisfactory way, but both useful in some circumstances. From this, Goodman introduced the idea of irrealism. Irrealism makes no assertions about the way the world is because Goodman doesn’t see it as one single reality.

    More about The Pros And Cons Of Ethical Noncognitivism

      Get Access