Non-cognitivism

<p>Non-cognitivism is the <a href="/facts/Meta-ethics/a8pTEKr2">meta-ethical</a> view that ethical <a href="/facts/Sentence_(linguistics)/GhKKkcm2">sentences</a> do not express <a href="/facts/Proposition/0877MFMD">propositions</a> (i.e., <a href="/facts/Statement_(logic)/CjpWAyxk">statements</a>) and thus cannot be <a href="/facts/Truth_value/SY4e2w8l">true or false</a> (they are not truth-apt). A noncognitivist denies the <a href="/facts/Cognitivism_(ethics)/fa9kVXvJ">cognitivist</a> claim that "moral judgments are capable of being objectively true, because they describe some feature of the world." If moral statements cannot be true, and if one cannot <a href="/facts/Knowledge/joozoaup">know</a> something that is not true, noncognitivism implies that moral knowledge is impossible.
</p><p>Non-cognitivism <a href="/facts/Logical_consequence/AyDXp4dn">entails</a> that non-cognitive <a href="/facts/Attitude_(psychology)/U9fTS27S">attitudes</a> underlie moral discourse and this discourse therefore consists of non-declarative <a href="/facts/Speech_act/l11PGwQu">speech acts</a>, although accepting that its surface features may consistently and efficiently work as if moral discourse were cognitive. The point of interpreting moral claims as non-declarative speech acts is to explain what moral claims mean if they are neither true nor false (as philosophies such as <a href="/facts/Logical_positivism/Dc6XMTsc">logical positivism</a> entail). Utterances like "Boo to killing!" and "Don't kill" are not candidates for truth or falsity, but have non-cognitive meaning.
</p>

Non-cognitivism open-in-new

Non-cognitivism