NonCognitivism & Expressivism

[Veritas Aequitas]

NonCognitivism & Expressivism are stances on morality that are against Cognitivism.

NonCognitivism & Expressivism are typical of Peter Holmes, PantFlasher, Sculptors [the 3 stooges] stance that there are no moral facts, thus morality cannot be objective as in these two of PH's threads.

Is morality objective or subjective?
What could make morality objective?


What is NonCognitivism?

• Non-cognitivism is the meta-ethical view that ethical sentences do not express propositions (i.e., statements) and thus cannot be true or false (they are not truth-apt).
  A noncognitivist denies the cognitivist claim that "moral judgments are capable of being objectively true, because they describe some feature of the world".
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-cognitivism

As I had claimed and mentioned to Peter many times, his 'no moral facts from typical factual statements' stance is traceable to the bastardized ideology of the Logical Positivists. Note 'Emotivism' an earlier form of NonCognitivism.

• Emotivism, associated with A. J. Ayer, the Vienna Circle [Logical Positivists] and C. L. Stevenson, suggests that ethical sentences are primarily emotional expressions of one's own attitudes and are intended to influence the actions of the listener. Under this view, "Killing is wrong" is translated as "Killing, boo!" or "I disapprove of killing." - Wiki

What is Expressivism?

• Expressivism is a form of moral anti-realism or nonfactualism:
  the view that there are no moral facts that moral sentences describe or represent, and no moral properties or relations to which moral terms refer.
  Expressivists deny constructivist accounts of moral facts – e.g. Kantianism – as well as realist accounts – e.g. ethical intuitionism.[3]
  
  Because expressivism claims that the function of moral language is not descriptive, it allows the irrealist to avoid an error theory: the view that ordinary moral thought and discourse is committed to deep and pervasive error, and that all moral statements make false ontological claims.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expressivism

NonCognitivism is Against Cognitivism.
What is Cognitivism?

• Cognitivism is the meta-ethical view that ethical sentences express propositions and can therefore be true or false (they are truth-apt), which noncognitivists deny.[1]
  Cognitivism is so broad a thesis that it encompasses (among other views)
  • moral realism (which claims that ethical sentences express propositions about mind-independent facts of the world),
    ethical subjectivism (which claims that ethical sentences express propositions about peoples' attitudes or opinions), and
    error theory (which claims that ethical sentences express propositions, but that they are all false, whatever their nature).
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitivism_(ethics)

The History Behind NonCognitivism
Historically, why the nonCogntivists are so paranoid against the cognitivists is;
1. their ancestors are very much against the idea of God's moral facts which the theists claimed to counter the sufferings imposed by the clergy, the Schools, and the likes.

2. later theists resorted to reason [Descartes, Anselm, etc] to support their claim of moral facts from God.

3. the nonCognitivists [early empiricists, e.g. Hume] turned against all moral via reason, i.e. targeting the rationalists.

4. thereafter the logical positivists driven by an arrogant sense of superiority started to denounce all moral claims as nonsensical and meaningless as an ideolog, i.e. based on bastardized philosophy.

5. At present, the bastardized ideology is polished and adopted by moral deniers such as Peter Holmes, PantFlasher, Sculptor and gang who would demonish and dehumanize any one who claim moral facts exist are real.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Because nonCognitivism [based on empiricism] from the start is an emotional and psychological response to theism, it lack the rigor to support itself as a solid philosophical stance.
This psychological basis has turn nonCognitivism into a Derangement Syndrome.
Since it started nonCognition has to keep changing and revising its stance throughout many philosophical phases as I had listed in its historicity above.

I will show later why nonCognitivism is not tenable and moral-facts denier should give up their ideology with a bastardized origin from the arrogant and superiority-complex logical positivists.

[Peter Holmes]

NonCognitivism & Expressivism are stances on morality that are against Cognitivism.

NonCognitivism & Expressivism are typical of Peter Holmes, PantFlasher, Sculptors [the 3 stooges] stance that there are no moral facts, thus morality cannot be objective as in these two of PH's threads.

Is morality objective or subjective?
What could make morality objective?


What is NonCognitivism?

• Non-cognitivism is the meta-ethical view that ethical sentences do not express propositions (i.e., statements) and thus cannot be true or false (they are not truth-apt).
  A noncognitivist denies the cognitivist claim that "moral judgments are capable of being objectively true, because they describe some feature of the world".
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-cognitivism

As I had claimed and mentioned to Peter many times, his 'no moral facts from typical factual statements' stance is traceable to the bastardized ideology of the Logical Positivists. Note 'Emotivism' an earlier form of NonCognitivism.

• Emotivism, associated with A. J. Ayer, the Vienna Circle [Logical Positivists] and C. L. Stevenson, suggests that ethical sentences are primarily emotional expressions of one's own attitudes and are intended to influence the actions of the listener. Under this view, "Killing is wrong" is translated as "Killing, boo!" or "I disapprove of killing." - Wiki

What is Expressivism?

• Expressivism is a form of moral anti-realism or nonfactualism:
  the view that there are no moral facts that moral sentences describe or represent, and no moral properties or relations to which moral terms refer.
  Expressivists deny constructivist accounts of moral facts – e.g. Kantianism – as well as realist accounts – e.g. ethical intuitionism.[3]
  
  Because expressivism claims that the function of moral language is not descriptive, it allows the irrealist to avoid an error theory: the view that ordinary moral thought and discourse is committed to deep and pervasive error, and that all moral statements make false ontological claims.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expressivism

NonCognitivism is Against Cognitivism.
What is Cognitivism?

• Cognitivism is the meta-ethical view that ethical sentences express propositions and can therefore be true or false (they are truth-apt), which noncognitivists deny.[1]
  Cognitivism is so broad a thesis that it encompasses (among other views)
  • moral realism (which claims that ethical sentences express propositions about mind-independent facts of the world),
    ethical subjectivism (which claims that ethical sentences express propositions about peoples' attitudes or opinions), and
    error theory (which claims that ethical sentences express propositions, but that they are all false, whatever their nature).
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitivism_(ethics)

The History Behind NonCognitivism
Historically, why the nonCogntivists are so paranoid against the cognitivists is;
1. their ancestors are very much against the idea of God's moral facts which the theists claimed to counter the sufferings imposed by the clergy, the Schools, and the likes.

2. later theists resorted to reason [Descartes, Anselm, etc] to support their claim of moral facts from God.

3. the nonCognitivists [early empiricists, e.g. Hume] turned against all moral via reason, i.e. targeting the rationalists.

4. thereafter the logical positivists driven by an arrogant sense of superiority started to denounce all moral claims as nonsensical and meaningless as an ideolog, i.e. based on bastardized philosophy.

5. At present, the bastardized ideology is polished and adopted by moral deniers such as Peter Holmes, PantFlasher, Sculptor and gang who would demonish and dehumanize any one who claim moral facts exist are real.

1 Cognition is "the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding'. So moral cognitivists claim moral rightness and wrongness are things that can be known and understood. But they have failed to demonstrate that those things exist, so moral cognitivism is irrational.

2 The logical positivists were wrong to claim that moral and aesthetic assertions are meaningless. But they were right to emphasise the need for empirical evidence to support factual assertions.

3 We non-cognitivists are not 'moral deniers'. That is a fatuous and libellous claim, for which you should be ashamed. That there are no moral facts does not mean there can be no rational moral judgements. What sort of blinkered idiot would think that?

[RCSaunders]

We non-cognitivists are not 'moral deniers'. That there are no moral facts does not mean there can be no rational moral judgements.

Oh good! What would be an example of a non-cognitivist moral judgement?

[Impenitent]

non-cognitivist moral judgement...

the stripped gear slid wickedly around the drive shaft...

-Imp

[RCSaunders]

non-cognitivist moral judgement...

the stripped gear slid wickedly around the drive shaft...

-Imp

That is a vicious but toothless example for which there is no forgiveness.

[Peter Holmes]

We non-cognitivists are not 'moral deniers'. That there are no moral facts does not mean there can be no rational moral judgements.

Oh good! What would be an example of a non-cognitivist moral judgement?

Any moral judgement at all. Slavery is morally wrong.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1 Cognition is "the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding'. So moral cognitivists claim moral rightness and wrongness are things that can be known and understood. But they have failed to demonstrate that those things exist, so moral cognitivism is irrational.

I have already demonstrated in so many posts and threads, moral facts are justified to be true moral beliefs via the Moral Framework and System.

It is sad and philosophically pitiful you are suffering from the syndrome where you cannot see that 500 pounds gorilla right in front of you due to confirmation bias thus selective attention.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo

2 The logical positivists [LPs] were wrong to claim that moral and aesthetic assertions are meaningless. But they were right to emphasise the need for empirical evidence to support factual assertions.

Requiring empirical justification based on evidence and philosophical reasoning for factual claims is the default of rationality and philosophical necessity.

But as I have demonstrated, the LPs define 'fact' from their own narrow views and bastardized philosophy.
Note my argument on 'What is fact' which are specific to a FSK, thus Moral FSK produce moral facts. Therefore moral facts exist.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486
and
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

In addition,
A Moral Assertion is a Moral Fact
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30046

3 We non-cognitivists are not 'moral deniers'. That is a fatuous and libellous claim, for which you should be ashamed. That there are no moral facts does not mean there can be no rational moral judgements. What sort of blinkered idiot would think that?

It ['moral deniers'] was an over-sight due to hastiness.
If you read all the past posts in this subject, I have been accusing you and the rest as 'moral-facts-deniers.' I am aware you et. al. are for moral judgments to act "morally" [whatever your definition].

So you have now found your moral home, i.e. Non-Cognitivism, which I believe is specifically Emotivism and Expressivism.
I will show you later why Emotivism and Expression of NonCognitivism are not sound moral views.

[Peter Holmes]

1 Cognition is "the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding'. So moral cognitivists claim moral rightness and wrongness are things that can be known and understood. But they have failed to demonstrate that those things exist, so moral cognitivism is irrational.

I have already demonstrated in so many posts and threads, moral facts are justified to be true moral beliefs via the Moral Framework and System.

It is sad and philosophically pitiful you are suffering from the syndrome where you cannot see that 500 pounds gorilla right in front of you due to confirmation bias thus selective attention.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo

2 The logical positivists [LPs] were wrong to claim that moral and aesthetic assertions are meaningless. But they were right to emphasise the need for empirical evidence to support factual assertions.

Requiring empirical justification based on evidence and philosophical reasoning for factual claims is the default of rationality and philosophical necessity.

But as I have demonstrated, the LPs define 'fact' from their own narrow views and bastardized philosophy.
Note my argument on 'What is fact' which are specific to a FSK, thus Moral FSK produce moral facts. Therefore moral facts exist.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486
and
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777

In addition,
A Moral Assertion is a Moral Fact
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30046

3 We non-cognitivists are not 'moral deniers'. That is a fatuous and libellous claim, for which you should be ashamed. That there are no moral facts does not mean there can be no rational moral judgements. What sort of blinkered idiot would think that?

It ['moral deniers'] was an over-sight due to hastiness.
If you read all the past posts in this subject, I have been accusing you and the rest as 'moral-facts-deniers.' I am aware you et. al. are for moral judgments to act "morally" [whatever your definition].

So you have now found your moral home, i.e. Non-Cognitivism, which I believe is specifically Emotivism and Expressivism.
I will show you later why Emotivism and Expression of NonCognitivism are not sound moral views.

1 Be careful with terms. A belief does not have a truth-value, so the expression 'true belief' is a misattribution or transferred epithet. To believe is to accept or agree with something, just as to disbelieve is to reject or disagree. And neither acceptance nor rejection have truth-value. The only thngs that can be true or false are factual assertions.

2 The logical positivists defined 'fact' in exactly the same way as you and I do: a thing or event that is or was the case. And, as you and I do, they maintained that empirical evidence is needed to justify calling something a fact. Your obsession with logical positivismis is a dead end in this discussion.

3 Your FSK theory - that all truth-claims exist inside a descriptive context - does not demonstrate that any descriptive context can produce facts - in the sense of true factual assertions. Empirical evidence is needed, and there is none for what you call moral facts. Your own argument destroys your claim.

4 You raised the cognitivsm/non-cognitivism distinction, not me. But I've explained what 'cognition' means, and therefore why moral cognitivism is irrational, because there's no evidence for the existence of the supposed moral things that can be known or understood. So, again, your own commitment to empirical evidence destroys your moral cognitivism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1 Be careful with terms. A belief does not have a truth-value, so the expression 'true belief' is a misattribution or transferred epithet. To believe is to accept or agree with something, just as to disbelieve is to reject or disagree. And neither acceptance nor rejection have truth-value. The only thngs that can be true or false are factual assertions.

Again you are ignorant.
I wonder where do you get your ideas from?

• Belief: an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
  -Oxford Dictionary

A belief is a Justified-True-Belief when it is justified to be true in accordance to the conditions of a specific FSK, e.g. the Scientific FSK produce justified true scientific beliefs, i.e. facts and knowledge.

2 The logical positivists defined 'fact' in exactly the same way as you and I do: a thing or event that is or was the case. And, as you and I do, they maintained that empirical evidence is needed to justify calling something a fact. Your obsession with logical positivismis is a dead end in this discussion.

Nope.
The LPs do not cater for facts as conditioned by its respective FSK.
What is fact to them is conditioned by their own LP FSK per the rules set by them.

3 Your FSK theory - that all truth-claims exist inside a descriptive context - does not demonstrate that any descriptive context can produce facts - in the sense of true factual assertions. Empirical evidence is needed, and there is none for what you call moral facts. Your own argument destroys your claim.

Nope my FSK theory do generate descriptive statement of facts only but also where specific general prescriptive facts.
Note the legislature FSK pass prescriptive laws as legal facts.

4 You raised the cognitivsm/non-cognitivism distinction, not me. But I've explained what 'cognition' means, and therefore why moral cognitivism is irrational, because there's no evidence for the existence of the supposed moral things that can be known or understood. So, again, your own commitment to empirical evidence destroys your moral cognitivism.

Whether you like it or not, your stance on morality fit into Non-Cognitivism and squarely on emotivism and expressivism.
These are merely placeholders as a matter of convenience for discussion and debates to avoid having to bring in the whole gamut and cumbersome loads of elements that represent your moral stance - but of course what is relevant is the substance there in.
The substance of your moral stance fit squarely into Non-Cognitivism i.e. specifically emotivism and expressivism, if not show me why it is not so, I will agree to ignore it.

[Peter Holmes]

1 Be careful with terms. A belief does not have a truth-value, so the expression 'true belief' is a misattribution or transferred epithet. To believe is to accept or agree with something, just as to disbelieve is to reject or disagree. And neither acceptance nor rejection have truth-value. The only thngs that can be true or false are factual assertions.

Again you are ignorant.
I wonder where do you get your ideas from?

• Belief: an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
  -Oxford Dictionary

A belief is a Justified-True-Belief when it is justified to be true in accordance to the conditions of a specific FSK, e.g. the Scientific FSK produce justified true scientific beliefs, i.e. facts and knowledge.

2 The logical positivists defined 'fact' in exactly the same way as you and I do: a thing or event that is or was the case. And, as you and I do, they maintained that empirical evidence is needed to justify calling something a fact. Your obsession with logical positivismis is a dead end in this discussion.

Nope.
The LPs do not cater for facts as conditioned by its respective FSK.
What is fact to them is conditioned by their own LP FSK per the rules set by them.

3 Your FSK theory - that all truth-claims exist inside a descriptive context - does not demonstrate that any descriptive context can produce facts - in the sense of true factual assertions. Empirical evidence is needed, and there is none for what you call moral facts. Your own argument destroys your claim.

Nope my FSK theory do generate descriptive statement of facts only but also where specific general prescriptive facts.
Note the legislature FSK pass prescriptive laws as legal facts.

4 You raised the cognitivsm/non-cognitivism distinction, not me. But I've explained what 'cognition' means, and therefore why moral cognitivism is irrational, because there's no evidence for the existence of the supposed moral things that can be known or understood. So, again, your own commitment to empirical evidence destroys your moral cognitivism.

Whether you like it or not, your stance on morality fit into Non-Cognitivism and squarely on emotivism and expressivism.
These are merely placeholders as a matter of convenience for discussion and debates to avoid having to bring in the whole gamut and cumbersome loads of elements that represent your moral stance - but of course what is relevant is the substance there in.
The substance of your moral stance fit squarely into Non-Cognitivism i.e. specifically emotivism and expressivism, if not show me why it is not so, I will agree to ignore it.

1 Please address my explanation of the irrationality of moral cognitivism. Please actually deal with my argument, and try to show why you think it's mistaken.

2 We agree that all facts are contextual - they exist in what you call the moral FSK - framework and system of knowledge. So then you ask: why can't there be moral facts?

Okay. Why not try the intellectually honest approach - and try to answer your own question? Why might it be that there aren't or can't be moral facts? Use the method of critical thinking - of rational skepticism.

Suggestion: try a comparison. For example, why might it be that there aren't or can't be astrological facts? Astrology-believers think astrology is an FSK - so they think there are astrological facts. Why might it be that they're wrong?

[RCSaunders]

We non-cognitivists are not 'moral deniers'. That there are no moral facts does not mean there can be no rational moral judgements.

Oh good! What would be an example of a non-cognitivist moral judgement?

Any moral judgement at all. Slavery is morally wrong.

Yes, of course. "Eating cotton candy on Sunday is morally wrong," is certainly a moral judgment, just as, "Slavery is morally wrong," is a moral judgment. The question is are you asserting that slavery is morally wrong or only using that as an example of a moral judgment? In your opinion, is slavery morally wrong?

[Peter Holmes]

Oh good! What would be an example of a non-cognitivist moral judgement?

Any moral judgement at all. Slavery is morally wrong.

Yes, of course. "Eating cotton candy on Sunday is morally wrong," is certainly a moral judgment, just as, "Slavery is morally wrong," is a moral judgment. The question is are you asserting that slavery is morally wrong or only using that as an example of a moral judgment? In your opinion, is slavery morally wrong?

Erm. If morality is - if moral judgements are - non-cognitivist, then all moral judgements - such as 'slavery is morally wrong' - are non-cognitivist. Tautology. To make a moral judgement is not to know or understand something. There's nothing to be known or understood.

And yes, I think slavery is morally wrong. As is capital punishment. But I think abortion is not morally wrong. And so on.

[Impenitent]

non-cognitivist moral judgement...

the stripped gear slid wickedly around the drive shaft...

-Imp

That is a vicious but toothless example for which there is no forgiveness.

we do what we can...

-Imp

[RCSaunders]

Any moral judgement at all. Slavery is morally wrong.

Yes, of course. "Eating cotton candy on Sunday is morally wrong," is certainly a moral judgment, just as, "Slavery is morally wrong," is a moral judgment. The question is are you asserting that slavery is morally wrong or only using that as an example of a moral judgment? In your opinion, is slavery morally wrong?

Erm. If morality is - if moral judgements are - non-cognitivist, then all moral judgements - such as 'slavery is morally wrong' - are non-cognitivist. Tautology. To make a moral judgement is not to know or understand something. There's nothing to be known or understood.

And yes, I think slavery is morally wrong. As is capital punishment. But I think abortion is not morally wrong. And so on.

So, your moral judgment: "slavery is morally wrong," means nothing that can be known or understood? So, it doesn't make any difference if you have slaves, it's just, "morally wrong," but irrelevant to anything?

Frankly, I cannot see the point of making any non-cognitivist moral judgments, since they don't mean anything and have no consequence one way or the other. In non-cognitivist terms, there is no point in being moral because it's no different than being immoral (except for the spelling).