Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
11 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
|
Define cognitivism |
View that moral judgements express beliefs; they are propositions and can be true or false. |
|
|
|
Define non-cognitivism |
View that moral judgements do not express propositions and thus cannot be true or false. They might express individual or cultural preferences, emotions, etc. |
|
|
|
Define moral nihilism |
View that there are no moral facts; moral judgemenrs express beliefs, but none of those beliefs are true. |
|
|
|
Define realism |
View that what determines the truth-value of a moral judgement is its accuracy in representing the world. Moral facts are considered
mind-independent, part of the "fabric" of the world. |
Realism presupposes cognitivism. |
|
|
Define constructivism |
View that the truth-value of a moral judgement is determined by attitudes, actions, responses, etc. of people (collectively or individually) |
Presupposes cognitivism. |
|
|
Define naturalism
|
View that moral facts are natural facts. Sub-categories: definitional and metaphysical *same goes for supernaturalism |
|
|
|
Define non-naturalism |
View that moral facts and properties are not natural nor supernatural, a separate type. Definitional or metaphysical. |
|
|
|
Outline Ayer's argument for non-cognitivism |
1) Cog is true --> moral judg. describe facts 2) Facts are natural, supernatural or non-natural. 3) Moral facts can't be non-natural, else moral judg. would be meaningless 4) Can't be natural either; naturalistic fallacy C: Cog is false |
|
|
|
How can we respond to the claim that judgements about non-natural facts are meaningless? |
By attacking logical positivism (on which the claim is based). Note that logical positivism is self-refuting (isn't a tautology and can't be proven empirically). |
|
|
|
Describe metaphysical worries regarding non-naturalism |
- Loss of parsimony - Strangeness; moral properties are supposed to motivate us, and yet they would be different from everything else we know. Too weird to exist (Mackie) |
|
|
|
Describe epistemological worries regarding non-naturalism |
How can we know these strange facts? Usual answer: By intuition. How does that work? What do we do when intuitions clash, in one mind or between many? Again, very strange. |
|
