Noncognitivists are incorrect in claiming that one can’t make moral arguments. Noncognitivists claim that since it is impossible to make a true or false moral claim, that therefore it is impossible to make a moral statement or argument. However, this isn’t a good argument. Their argument is based on the assumption that one can’t make a true or false moral statement. While that may be true in the absolute scientific sense, people still can absolutely believe that moral claims are true or false. And because they can believe that, they can make arguments for or against those moral claims. Whether that claim can be proven true or false in an absolute sense in irrelevant. Arguments about them can still be made.
Critical Thinking
I thought this part in the reading was very interesting because I have never really thought to question a statement of morals that I believe wholeheartedly could not be proven true or false, as a noncognitivist would claim. I think I would agree with you that there are certain moral claims that can be deemed as “true” or “false”, like the example “slavery is wrong” that the author gave in the book. However, I think it is difficult to separate these claims from emotional input, introducing a question of whether it is possible to empirically conclude something is true or false. Similar to our discussion early in the year about Doing Good Better, is there a way to choose to do the “best good” when there are many emotions and morals that influence individuals?
I agree that moral issues are not inherently true or false. Some moral issues do have societal designations for right vs wrong, murder for example, but issues like abortion and the death penalty are not as black and white as murder. I think that people are allowed to have opinions and it is more important that people have conversations instead of just shutting down .