Jump to: Board index
May 16th, 2012, 1:52 pm
May 16th, 2012, 4:02 pm
Ophiuchus wrote:Scott wrote:Normative moral claims seem to claim there is some other mystical objective way in which things actually are valued or matter and that only one of those three forms of such judgement (or some other form of amoral judgement) matters in that mystical objective way.
I am actually rather divided on this issue. I certainly do not think that morality refers to, as you say, "some mystical objective way in which things actually are valued". I think that when we say "when you robbed that store, you did a bad thing", we are really just saying "I experienced a certain emotion called "immorality" when I considered the fact that you robbed that store". This is the emotivism that Ayer advocated, and although I think it is basically true, I still find that as long as we define certain axioms such as "the most ethical action is the one which maximized pleasure in the world" and "an unethical action is one which causes you to feel a certain emotion when you consider that action", we do get rather coherent language that works in its own logical framework. So, I think that the line between amoralism and noncognitivism is not really all that clear.