In the podcast Dr. Bezio mentions religion as an example of Normative claims, she says religion is a good example of normative claims because each religion has universal Truths that its followers live by. Her exception to her comparison was Unitarianism. I found this compelling because I was raised Unitarian Universalist. (They are an “unusual bunch.”) While in other youth groups and Sunday Schools children are told what to believe, we discussed what religion meant to us and what it meant to others. We would learn about other religions’ holidays, traditions, and beliefs and then discuss how they connected to us and to each other. Unitarianism is more relative than normative in some of the more traditional ways, but it still has some universal truths. At the beginning of our service, we light a Chalice and say an Affirmation in unison which states, “Love is the doctrine of this church, the quest for truth is its sacrament, and service is its prayer. To dwell together in peace, to seek knowledge in freedom, to serve human need, To the end that all souls shall grow into harmony with the divine. Thus, do we covenant?” And at the end when we Extinguish the Chalice as a symbol of our time together ending we say our Mission Statement; “We welcome all as we build a loving community, to nurture each person’s spiritual journey, serve human need, and protect the Earth, our home.” While this may not be as Normative as other religions, as welcome each person in the congregation to believe in any (or the absence of) higher power they wish it still has a sense of community and common ethical standards.

I have a question about the reading that if anyone has an insight on, I would be happy to hear!  I understand that there is a belief (from Noncognitivists) that ethical arguments cannot exist because ethics are not “true” or “false” but does that mean that even if a moral argument is backed by data from a study such as The New Hope Project it can still not be considered “true”?