E
Elioenai26
Guest
In philosophy, meta-ethics is the branch of ethics that seeks to understand the nature of ethical properties, statements, attitudes, and judgments.
According to Richard Garner and Bernard Rosen,[1] there are three kinds of meta-ethical problems, or three general questions:
These theories primarily put forward a position on the first of the three questions above, "What is the meaning of moral terms or judgments?" They may however imply or even entail answers to the other two questions as well.
Cognitivist theories hold that evaluative moral sentences express propositions (that is, they are "truth apt" or "truth bearers", capable of being true or false), as opposed to non-cognitivism.
Non-cognitivist theories hold that ethical sentences are neither true nor false because they do not express genuine propositions. Non-cognitivism is another form of moral anti-realism. Most forms of non-cognitivism are also forms of expressivism, however some such as Mark Timmons and Terrence Horgan distinguish the two and allow the possibility of cognitivist forms of expressivism. *Wikipedia*
This poll will be a poll of which semantic theory you hold to be true. Simply vote for one or the other. If you have any questions on these and desire to research them in-depth to see which one is the corresponding foundation for your ethical system, simply research the pertinent articles available on the internet.
It has become evident that many, if not most here, do not even know what these two semantic theories are and how they determine one's relating ethical views. Whichever theory has the highest number of adherents will be my target audience in my forthcoming case for the existence of objective moral values and duties.
Thank you for your participation.
According to Richard Garner and Bernard Rosen,[1] there are three kinds of meta-ethical problems, or three general questions:
- What is the meaning of moral terms or judgments?
- What is the nature of moral judgments?
- How may moral judgments be supported or defended?
These theories primarily put forward a position on the first of the three questions above, "What is the meaning of moral terms or judgments?" They may however imply or even entail answers to the other two questions as well.
Cognitivist theories hold that evaluative moral sentences express propositions (that is, they are "truth apt" or "truth bearers", capable of being true or false), as opposed to non-cognitivism.
Non-cognitivist theories hold that ethical sentences are neither true nor false because they do not express genuine propositions. Non-cognitivism is another form of moral anti-realism. Most forms of non-cognitivism are also forms of expressivism, however some such as Mark Timmons and Terrence Horgan distinguish the two and allow the possibility of cognitivist forms of expressivism. *Wikipedia*
This poll will be a poll of which semantic theory you hold to be true. Simply vote for one or the other. If you have any questions on these and desire to research them in-depth to see which one is the corresponding foundation for your ethical system, simply research the pertinent articles available on the internet.
It has become evident that many, if not most here, do not even know what these two semantic theories are and how they determine one's relating ethical views. Whichever theory has the highest number of adherents will be my target audience in my forthcoming case for the existence of objective moral values and duties.
Thank you for your participation.
Last edited:
