From an overall perspective, moral arguments seem to overlap around 90% with the previous arguments that we have been studying. One of the biggest things that stuck out to me is the concept of Noncognivtists. Refusing to be objective and pick a stance of right or wrong, it seems like a very cop-out choice to fully follow be a Noncognivist. I have a hard time understanding the train of thought behind this concept, however, the Noncognivist comparison that moral disagreement is similar to expressing emotions does make a lot of sense to me. Nearly all moral arguments that I can think of invoke some sort of emotion, and emotion seems to be the guiding reasoning for many moral arguments, which may not necessarily be the right thing to do. While Noncognivists do seem a bit extreme, I suspect that most people have a bit of Noncognivism in them. It can be difficult to pick a right or wrong stance every time, as there are some morally grey areas in life, so while Cognivists may initially seem much more reasonable, it isn’t always as practical.

Another concept that I found interesting (and familiar) is Universalism and the Universalistic Maximizing Consequentialist (USM). Immediately this sounds nearly identical to that of a Utilitarian, especially given the sample argument of maximizing happiness.  It would seem to me that all Utilitarians use the USM principle to guide their arguments, and I was surprised that Utilitarianism was not mentioned at all in this section.