Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    The best explanation for this irreducible moral disagreem... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Moral knowledge is impossible

    The best explanation for this irreducible moral disagreement is that moral judgments express non-cognitive attitudes rather than tracking knowable moral truths (as Blackburn's quasi-realism and Gibbard's expressivism argue).

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Key Terms

    Allan Gibbard(as an example philosopher representing anti-realist views)
    An American philosopher known for developing complex theories about how our moral judgments work, arguing they express attitudes rather than objective truths.
    Cognitive
    "Cognitive" refers to anything related to thinking, learning, understanding, and processing information in your mind. It includes activities like remembering facts, solving problems, making decisions, and paying attention. When someone talks about "cognitive skills" or "cognitive science," they're discussing how your brain takes in information and uses it to make sense of the world.
    Irreducible moral disagreement(as used in ethics)
    Disagreements about right and wrong that can't be resolved or reduced to a single answer, even with more information or better reasoning.
    Non-cognitive(describing what moral claims are NOT, according to this argument)
    Not involving knowledge or facts; based on feelings or emotions rather than on what is actually true or false.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Explore a random proposition
    Start fresh with something unrelated.
    Simon Blackburn(as an example philosopher representing anti-realist views)
    A prominent British philosopher who developed sophisticated versions of anti-realism, particularly about morality and other abstract concepts.
    expressivism(Metaethics / philosophy of language)
    A metaethical view on which ethical sentences express mental states different from beliefs, with proposed candidates including exclamations, commands, and plans
    moral judgments(as used in ethics)
    Decisions or conclusions about what is right, wrong, good, or bad—like deciding whether lying is acceptable or if helping others is important.
    moral truths(Society-centered moral naturalism as developed by Copp)
    Truths grounded in moral standards concerning codes that would enable societies to meet their basic needs, including continued existence, stable cooperation among members, internal harmony, and peaceful relations with other societies
    quasi-realism(Blackburn 1984)
    Blackburn's favored terminology for a form of non-cognitivism/expressivism that seeks to earn the right to realist-sounding moral discourse.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedSkepticism1 linked

    Related

    Moral knowledge is impossible

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective