Page 1 of 1
The Cognitive Gap
Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2023 1:24 pm
by Philosophy Now
Justin Bartlett explores a basic distinction between understandings of ethics.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/156/The_Cognitive_Gap
Re: The Cognitive Gap
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 4:37 am
by Veritas Aequitas
- OP: "Cognitivism makes claims that might seem a little far-fetched to some. Claims of objective morality might seem intuitively wrong to those people, or possibly even distasteful, if they’re seen as asserting an absolute morality that must be applied to all."
1. Human nature is a fact with its objective facts.
2. Evidently, Morality is an imperative element of human nature.
3. Therefore, morality is a fact and has its objective facts.
That ALL humans ought [imperative] breathe or else die is a fact of human nature supported by physical referents. This is an objective biological fact of human nature.
Food for thought;
It is very possible, since morality is a critical element of human nature as evident [2], there are objective moral facts of human nature [3] similar to the biological one above.
Re: The Cognitive Gap
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 5:04 am
by Age
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jun 18, 2023 4:37 am
- OP: "Cognitivism makes claims that might seem a little far-fetched to some. Claims of objective morality might seem intuitively wrong to those people, or possibly even distasteful, if they’re seen as asserting an absolute morality that must be applied to all."
1. Human nature is a fact with its objective facts.
2. Evidently, Morality is an imperative element of human nature.
3. Therefore, morality is a fact and has its objective facts.
That ALL humans ought [imperative] breathe or else die is a fact of human nature supported by physical referents. This is an objective biological fact of human nature.
Food for thought;
It is very possible, since morality is a critical element of human nature as evident [2], there are objective moral facts of human nature [3] similar to the biological one above.
'you', "veritas aequitas", could possibly be the WORST person here in 'TRYING TO' argue for what 'you' ALREADY BELIEVE is true and right.
For evidence, and proof, of this all we have to do is just look at your 1. 2. and 3. above here.
Re: The Cognitive Gap
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 8:58 am
by Wizard22
"Moral Facts" huh?
Then why do Juries disagree so much if they're "Facts"?
Re: The Cognitive Gap
Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2023 10:08 am
by Iwannaplato
1. Human nature is a fact with its objective facts.
2. Evidently, anthropomorphizing is an imperative element of human nature.
3. Therefore, the human nature of creation is a fact and animism and pantheism are facts.
That ALL humans ought [imperative] breathe or else die is a fact of human nature supported by physical referents. This is an objective biological fact of human nature.
Food for thought;
It is very possible, since anthomorphizing is a critical element of human nature as evident [2], it is imperative that various theisms thrive, especially those that are most anthropomorphizing (and thus more factual) the most 'things' and certain everything.
Re: The Cognitive Gap
Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2023 9:44 pm
by TheWanderingStoic
Great read, but question about the objection to moral non-cognitivism from logic. Take the argument presented in the article that moral non-cognitivism allegedly can’t deal with:
P1: Boo to killing!
P2: If ‘Boo to killing!’, then getting your little brother to kill is wrong.
C: Therefore, getting your little brother to kill is wrong.
Couldn’t this argument merely be rephrased as meaning the following under non-cognitivism?
P1: I have a strong distaste towards killing.
P2: If I have a strong distaste towards killing, then I have a strong distaste towards getting my little brother to kill.
C: Therefore, I have a strong distaste towards getting my little brother to kill.
This seems to be more-so what the non-cognitivist has in mind, but perhaps I am overlooking some conceptual or logical point.