Non Cognitvism Flashcards
(6 cards)
What is emotivism?
-Emotivism argues that moral language expresses emotional reactions rather than factual claims, undermining the idea that “good” has any objective meaning
-it is a non cognitive theory
What does Ayer believe about emotivism?
-Ayer, a logical positivist, developed this in line with the verification principle, which states that only statements verifiable by sense experience or tautology are meaningful
-Moral claims like “Murder is wrong” fail this test because they cannot be empirically proven true or false, so Ayer concludes they express only the speaker’s feelings
-For instance, saying “Giving to charity is good” is equivalent to saying “Yay for giving to charity!” -This emotional outburst — often called the “boo-hurrah theory” — means moral claims do not describe any moral property in the world; instead, they reveal personal attitudes
-Ayer writes that such statements are “pure expressions of feeling,” devoid of cognitive meaning. This implies that morality is fundamentally subjective and cannot be debated in factual terms, since two people who disagree about what is “good” are simply expressing opposing emotions, not contradictory truths
What is Prescriptivism?
Prescriptivism is a non-cognitivist theory developed by R.M. Hare which argues that moral statements are not factual claims but universal prescriptions, meaning they function like commands that guide action rather than describe the world
What does Hare argue about Prescriptivism ?
-R.M. Hare argues that when someone says “X is good,” they are not describing a fact or venting emotion but issuing a command-like imperative — a recommendation that others ought to follow
-For example, saying “Honesty is good” really means “Be honest,” and the speaker is committed to prescribing honesty in all relevantly similar situations
-This gives moral language a kind of logical structure: it must be universal and consistent.
-Hare believes that moral statements are action-guiding and bind both the speaker and others who adopt the same values. This preserves the practical force of moral discourse without claiming there is an objective “good” out there to be discovered
What do non cognitivists believe about good?
-Non-cognitivists argue that “good” has no objective or factual basis. According to Emotivism (Ayer), when we say “X is good”, we’re not stating a fact but expressing approval — like saying “Yay for X!”
-This view holds that moral terms don’t describe the world but reflect our emotions
-Similarly, Prescriptivism (Hare) claims moral statements are commands or prescriptions rather than facts, so “good” just means “do this,” not a property that exists. From this angle, there’s no such thing as “good” in any real or measurable sense
How could your argue that good is measurable?
-non-cognitivism struggles to account for how we debate ethics meaningfully. If “good” is just an emotional outburst or a command, then moral disagreement becomes like arguing over tastes - not reasoned argument
-Yet moral debates clearly involve reasoning, evidence, and appeals to justice or fairness. This supports the cognitive view: if moral language had no objective grounding, we couldn’t argue about ethics meaningfully
-Moreover, theories like Virtue Ethics and Natural Law show that “good” can be tied to human flourishing, not just emotion
-Ethical naturalists like utilitarians and followers of Natural Moral Law argue that “good” is an objective, factual property. For example, utilitarianism defines “good” as what maximises happiness, and that can be measured through consequences. This makes moral statements like “it is good to give to charity” truth-apt and grounded in observable outcomes.
-Aquinas, as a natural law theorist, links goodness to fulfilling human purpose, which he believed was discoverable through reason. These views suggest that “good” is not meaningless but can be known and applied consistently.
