- published: 01 May 2013
- views: 8450
Non-cognitivism is the meta-ethical view that ethical sentences do not express propositions (i.e. statements) and thus cannot be true or false (they are not truth-apt). A noncognitivist denies the cognitivist claim that "moral judgments are capable of being objectively true, because they describe some feature of the world." If moral statements cannot be true, and if one cannot know something that is not true, noncognitivism implies that moral knowledge is impossible.
Non-cognitivism entails that non-cognitive attitudes underlie moral discourse and this discourse therefore consists of non-declarative speech acts, although accepting that its surface features may consistently and efficiently work as if moral discourse were cognitive. The point of interpreting moral claims as non-declarative speech acts is to explain what moral claims mean if they are neither true nor false (as philosophies such as logical positivism entail). Utterances like "Boo to killing!" and "Don't kill" are not candidates for truth or falsity, but have non-cognitive meaning.
Crash Course (also known as Driving Academy) is a 1988 made for television teen film directed by Oz Scott.
Crash Course centers on a group of high schoolers in a driver’s education class; many for the second or third time. The recently divorced teacher, super-passive Larry Pearl, is on thin ice with the football fanatic principal, Principal Paulson, who is being pressured by the district superintendent to raise driver’s education completion rates or lose his coveted football program. With this in mind, Principal Paulson and his assistant, with a secret desire for his job, Abner Frasier, hire an outside driver’s education instructor with a very tough reputation, Edna Savage, aka E.W. Savage, who quickly takes control of the class.
The plot focuses mostly on the students and their interactions with their teachers and each other. In the beginning, Rico is the loner with just a few friends, Chadley is the bookish nerd with few friends who longs to be cool and also longs to be a part of Vanessa’s life who is the young, friendly and attractive girl who had to fake her mother’s signature on her driver’s education permission slip. Kichi is the hip-hop Asian kid who often raps what he has to say and constantly flirts with Maria, the rich foreign girl who thinks that the right-of-way on the roadways always goes to (insert awesomely fake foreign Latino accent) “my father’s limo”. Finally you have stereotypical football meathead J.J., who needs to pass his English exam to keep his eligibility and constantly asks out and gets rejected by Alice, the tomboy whose father owns “Santini & Son” Concrete Company. Alice is portrayed as being the “son” her father wanted.
One of the most famous and difficult problems in ethics! The issue that killed moral noncognitivism – The Frege-Geach Problem! Ethics Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvoAL-KSZ32ecfEjoNjMJyKTFUS5-hNr9 Subscribe! http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=thephilosophytube Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/PhilosophyTube Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PhilosophyTube?ref=hl Twitter: @PhilosophyTube Email: ollysphilosophychannel@gmail.com Google+: google.com/+thephilosophytube Suggested Reading: Peter Geach, “Assertion,” in Philosophical Review Sponsors! Rich Clarke D.j. Aaron Priestes Jim Groth David Stewart Eric Driussi Jason Cherry Juho Laitalainen If you or your organisation would like to financially support Philosophy Tube in distributing philosophical...
Please comment & subscribe! I'm responding to this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL6RofIcBaw but really this video is just a stand alone explanation of my meta-ethics. I'm going to continue with macroeconomics, including a series on the history of the business cycle, but Vulcanthug just did a video on noncognitivism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk1iP0pt4AM so here's my 2cents. BTW - being a noncognitivist with taste but not morality is arbitrary and inconsistent. The forces that make me like sugar and curry are the same that make me like generosity and kindness. Some related links: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-cognitivism/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-non-naturalism/#OpeQueArg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language,_Truth,_and_Logic http://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
This is a rather unfocused elaboration on my last video, Why Non-cognitivism is Correct: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RwGEitHn_I http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-cognitivism - family http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expressivism - genus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-realism - species This video is pieced together comments I wrote. I don't speak for all non-cognitivists but this is at least an attempt to clarify what's implied. The biggest problem with meta-ethics is people don't want to take one issue at a time. They demand a total theory of how to establish, apply, and resolve ethics, universally and absolutely. This is asking for a lot, and as an expressivist I would say they're the wrong things to be demanding anyway. My next video on this will be on how non-cognitivism transve...
One of the theories you will come across in discussions of morality is called non-cognitivism. In my opinion, this is one of the most consistent forms of subjective morality and is at least worth discussing. Hopefully this video can help you recognize the difference between different moral viewpoints and perhaps be able to figure out which category you find yourself in. Asking yourself two questions can help find out what your views on morality are: 1. Are moral claims statements of fact? 2. If so, are any of those statements of fact actually true? To address a common objection: It is possible to like something on "some level" and simultaneously dislike it on another level. But it is not logically possible to like and dislike something "at the same time and in the same way" as I clari...
Part 4 of 7 in Marianne Talbot's "A Romp Through Ethics for Complete Beginners". In this episode we reflect on Hume's account of morality and his rejection of reason as the source of morality. Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales; http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/uk/
discussion of the distinction in metaethics between cognitivism and non-cognitivism and the theories the two names blanket.
You can directly support Crash Course at http://www.subbable.com/crashcourse Subscribe for as little as $0 to keep up with everything we're doing. Also, if you can afford to pay a little every month, it really helps us to continue producing great content. We used to think that the human brain was a lot like a computer; using logic to figure out complicated problems. It turns out, it's a lot more complex and, well, weird than that. In this episode of Crash Course Psychology, Hank discusses thinking & communication, solving problems, creating problems, and a few ideas about what our brains are doing up there. -- Table of Contents Thinking & Communicating 01:39:16 Solving Problems 03:21:03 Creating Problems 05:46:06 -- Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet? Facebook - http...
In this video, I examine emotivism. I look at A.J. Ayer and C. L. Stevenson's defences of emotivism, and then outline a number of objections to the theory.
One of the most famous and difficult problems in ethics! The issue that killed moral noncognitivism – The Frege-Geach Problem! Ethics Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvoAL-KSZ32ecfEjoNjMJyKTFUS5-hNr9 Subscribe! http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=thephilosophytube Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/PhilosophyTube Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PhilosophyTube?ref=hl Twitter: @PhilosophyTube Email: ollysphilosophychannel@gmail.com Google+: google.com/+thephilosophytube Suggested Reading: Peter Geach, “Assertion,” in Philosophical Review Sponsors! Rich Clarke D.j. Aaron Priestes Jim Groth David Stewart Eric Driussi Jason Cherry Juho Laitalainen If you or your organisation would like to financially support Philosophy Tube in distributing philosophical...
Please comment & subscribe! I'm responding to this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL6RofIcBaw but really this video is just a stand alone explanation of my meta-ethics. I'm going to continue with macroeconomics, including a series on the history of the business cycle, but Vulcanthug just did a video on noncognitivism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk1iP0pt4AM so here's my 2cents. BTW - being a noncognitivist with taste but not morality is arbitrary and inconsistent. The forces that make me like sugar and curry are the same that make me like generosity and kindness. Some related links: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-cognitivism/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-non-naturalism/#OpeQueArg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language,_Truth,_and_Logic http://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
This is a rather unfocused elaboration on my last video, Why Non-cognitivism is Correct: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RwGEitHn_I http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-cognitivism - family http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expressivism - genus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-realism - species This video is pieced together comments I wrote. I don't speak for all non-cognitivists but this is at least an attempt to clarify what's implied. The biggest problem with meta-ethics is people don't want to take one issue at a time. They demand a total theory of how to establish, apply, and resolve ethics, universally and absolutely. This is asking for a lot, and as an expressivist I would say they're the wrong things to be demanding anyway. My next video on this will be on how non-cognitivism transve...
One of the theories you will come across in discussions of morality is called non-cognitivism. In my opinion, this is one of the most consistent forms of subjective morality and is at least worth discussing. Hopefully this video can help you recognize the difference between different moral viewpoints and perhaps be able to figure out which category you find yourself in. Asking yourself two questions can help find out what your views on morality are: 1. Are moral claims statements of fact? 2. If so, are any of those statements of fact actually true? To address a common objection: It is possible to like something on "some level" and simultaneously dislike it on another level. But it is not logically possible to like and dislike something "at the same time and in the same way" as I clari...
Part 4 of 7 in Marianne Talbot's "A Romp Through Ethics for Complete Beginners". In this episode we reflect on Hume's account of morality and his rejection of reason as the source of morality. Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales; http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/uk/
discussion of the distinction in metaethics between cognitivism and non-cognitivism and the theories the two names blanket.
You can directly support Crash Course at http://www.subbable.com/crashcourse Subscribe for as little as $0 to keep up with everything we're doing. Also, if you can afford to pay a little every month, it really helps us to continue producing great content. We used to think that the human brain was a lot like a computer; using logic to figure out complicated problems. It turns out, it's a lot more complex and, well, weird than that. In this episode of Crash Course Psychology, Hank discusses thinking & communication, solving problems, creating problems, and a few ideas about what our brains are doing up there. -- Table of Contents Thinking & Communicating 01:39:16 Solving Problems 03:21:03 Creating Problems 05:46:06 -- Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet? Facebook - http...
In this video, I examine emotivism. I look at A.J. Ayer and C. L. Stevenson's defences of emotivism, and then outline a number of objections to the theory.
Part 4 of 7 in Marianne Talbot's "A Romp Through Ethics for Complete Beginners". In this episode we reflect on Hume's account of morality and his rejection of reason as the source of morality. Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales; http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/uk/
Quite a lot of bit is roughly cut out unfortunately due to my inexperience with audacity. Hopefully that won't happen again. Edited with some subtitles due to parts that are hard to hear due to my crappy mixing.
Are there objective moral truths? Or is morality merely relative to individual or cultural standards (relativism), or perhaps not even in the game of truth or falsity at all (non-cognitivism)? After discussing these meta-ethical issues and the various arguments for and against moral realism, the ethical treatment of animals is then discussed. Philosopher Nathan Nobis discusses moral realism and animals with Luke Muehlhauser in an episode of Muehlhauser's podcast from a few years back which you can find here: commonsenseatheism.com
In this video, I examine emotivism. I look at A.J. Ayer and C. L. Stevenson's defences of emotivism, and then outline a number of objections to the theory.
Been trying to get a hangout going with King Crocoduck and Ozy today as Ozy wants to school me in a few things (If sound is energy or not, my use of "apatheism" and "theological noncognitivism") but I am unable to get a hold of Ozy, but King Crocoduck still drops by. Was a very fun and educational hangout! Thanks KC!
In this second talk, David Armstrong defends a cognitivist theory of perception. He spells out his view and contrasts it with other views, including John Foster's Berkeleyan Idealist theory of perception. This talk was part of the Pufendorf lectures: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBHxLhKiPKxCs7_gA_7FIwypKPDihFDLs Subtitles have been added.
Cheryl Misak discusses Frank P. Ramsey on truth and pragmatism. She discusses his account of ethical and aesthetic belief (judgment) and is contrasted with G. E. Moore's ethical non-naturalism (where ethical properties like goodness are simple indefinable objective qualities of the world) and emotivism, like that found in the work of the logical positivists (where ethical sentences do not express truths, but are mere subjective expressions of emotion).
In this video, I briefly explain the main positions in metaethics. I then outline two important metaethical problems: the is-ought gap and the fact-value distinction.
In this talk, Mark Schroeder and Jamie Dreier discuss some non-realist theories in meta-ethics. In particular, they discuss contextualism, expressivism, and relativism, and some of the issues which arise for each (like issues of moral disagreement). This is from Philosophy TV. For more information, go to www.philostv.com. According to contextualism, the meaning of moral terms (like 'good' and 'wrong') is determined by context. So the content varies across different contexts. According to expressivism, moral language is not descriptive. Moral judgments only express our evaluative attitudes and so aren't in the business of being true or false. And according to relativism, moral judgments, while capable of being true or false, are only true or false relative to particular moral standards (l...