Non-Cognitivism is the view that ethical sentences cannot be true or false (that they do not form propositions) and Cognitivism that it can. I hold to the notion that ethical sentences such as "Killing people is bad!" can be objectively true or false. But it depends on the the goal of the person.

For instance, it may be the case that a person may subjectively want to pursue knowledge as opposed to well being. And in that pursuit, killing people may or may not be good. At the same time if the person were to value well being, it could be again determined if it was good or bad. But the result may not align with that for the pursuit of knowledge. Nevertheless there is an objective best(good) answer out there that we could in principle arrive at inductively.

At the same time I understand that there are certain moral compulsions forced on us as a result of evolution by natural selection. Why we believe incest to be immoral could just be a moral "disgust" if you will. The same reason we are by default afraid of arachnids. But this would mean it isn't necessarily explained by any of the popular non-cognitivist or cognitivist postions satisfactorily. At least at the level I understand them.

I would like to figure out if there is such a position like this, whether it has already been addressed and if it has, where I can learn more about it. Any guidance would be appreciated.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.