The idea of noncognitivism was not one that had crossed my mind before. When one is thinking about morality or ethics there has always been the premise that there are things that are wrong or right. The belief that “there are no moral statements that are true or false” challenges the often taught mentality that there are always right and wrong actions. Children are taught early on through either punishment or reward that there are morally right and wrong ways to treat people and objects. However, the removal of true and false from the evaluation of a moral statement is a curious proposal. Surely, as the chapter points out, it would take away much of the heat and emotion found in debate and politics. Perhaps this would even allow for less extreme partisanship and more true progress towards a greater good. However, would a debate over something with no truth or falsehood lead to any progress? How can one make a decision if there is no true and false to morality? For better or worse, we as a society largely agree that there are true and false moral values and statements. Unfortunately though, which solution is true is often where the debate begins.

Taking more of a cognitivist view point and believing that there is a true and false statement to a moral question leads more to how one does decide what is true and what is false. Personally, I thinking that in holding all people equally morally important, universalism looks like the best way to make a decision regarding morality. The idea that the benefit or harm to the larger population or culture looks the best, yet the egoism of the consequentialist approach is almost always bound to creep in. Personal interest is natural for humans and in some ways goes back to survival instincts of our ancestors. However, in order to make the largest moral impact on the most amount of people, the universalist mindset must be embodied. This is highly linked the concept of effective altruism when considering where and how much money to donate. Both universalism and effective altruism rely on the premise that the largest impact should be made on the most amount of people possible. Though challenging to fully embrace, the universalist approach to morality likely has the potential to do the most good in a society.