The Moral Argument reading and Dr. B’s podcast were both very interesting and provoked some questions that I have always found difficult to answer. I will say after reading the article, I found myself continuing to think about it as I allowed myself some time to process the information before writing the blog post.
In the Moral Argument reading, it was captivating how when I read the examples of moral claims, it was second nature for me to assume they were true or false. Learning about noncognitivists opened my mind set as I never thought about moral arguments not existing. After the article introduced cognitivists, it made me question if it is possible to be a noncognitivists and cognitivists depending on the statement presented. Could someone be in between both yet have clear thoughts that are respected by other individuals that have a clear distinction of where they fall when it comes from noncognitivists and cognitivists. Also, it is crazy to believe that in a hypothetical world, it could be seen as morally acceptable to murder someone. The fact that the podcast dove into the ideas of pointing out what is commonly believed yet they are not true moral arguments if you have the perspective of a noncognitivists.
Do you view yourself as a noncognitivists or cognitivists? Was this new terminology or has one of these perspectives been known to you before reading the article and listening to the podcast?
I too was really fascinated by the way of thinking of the noncognitivists because in extremely heated arguments like abortion, I could see no way that someone could try to take the emotion out of this argument and take a more agree to disagree stand point. However, I can also see the positives of thinking in this stand point, it would definitely take the stress out of some stupid fights.
I also found this reading very interesting, especially the discussion about cognitivists and noncognitivists; however, it also introduced new questions about the subject. I don’t understand how someone can be fully one or the other–morality and individualism are concepts that are crucial in every day life. There must be a balance between both, because being guided solely on morality or individualism can be very problematic and leads to extremism.
The concept of noncognitivists was new to me as well and I too struggled with how someone could think there are no universally accepted truths. As kids we are taught certain moral truths such as to not kill others, not cheat, not lie, or not steal. It’s hard for me to believe someone could not subscribe to any of these. I think there needs to be some balance between cognitivists and noncognitivists.