CreateDebate


Debate Info

13
9
cognitive non-cognitive
Debate Score:22
Arguments:45
Total Votes:24
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 cognitive (12)
 
 non-cognitive (7)

Debate Creator

zephyr20x6(2385) pic



Is morality cognitive or non-cognitive?

Moral cognitivism in a nutshell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitivism_(ethics) 
Moral non-cognitivism in a nutshell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-cognitivism 

cognitive

Side Score: 13
VS.

non-cognitive

Side Score: 9
1 point

How could it be non-cognitive? O.o

Side: cognitive
zephyr20x6(2385) Disputed
2 points

Because moral statements are simply not truth statements, they do not express the truth of something, moral statements are expressions of attitudes of approval and disapproval. If I say murder is immoral, I am expressing an attitude of disapproval towards murder, not the truth about anything.

saying two apples and two apples put together is the same as having four apples is expressing the truth about something, saying murder is immoral is not the truth about anything except your attitude towards murder.

edit

How is it cognitive?

Side: non-cognitive
ProLogos(2794) Clarified
1 point

So this is just another way of asking, "Is it subjective or objective?". Lame, worn out. I hoped it meant something else.

Side: cognitive
zephyr20x6(2385) Disputed
1 point

double post .

Side: non-cognitive
Stickers(1037) Clarified
1 point

It can't, morality is derived from Fi functions and requires cognition. What he's saying is that, because certain things incite feelings (which doesn't require cognition) in us, that the way that with which we determine it's merit must also by nature be without cognition, which is incorrect...

It's the quintessential confusion of Fi with Fe.

Side: cognitive
zephyr20x6(2385) Clarified
1 point

Can you clarify what you mean by Fi functions or fe ?

No, what I am saying is moral statements don't express truth, to say "X is immoral" is not expressing the truth about anything except what you approve and disapprove of.

Side: cognitive
ProLogos(2794) Clarified
1 point

Yeah...I was thinking that. But his usage of cognition and non-cognition is weird...I don't think its the same as the actual usage.

Side: cognitive
1 point

More or less, yes. Our morality is shaped by what we value most. It's our (more or less) deliberately developed habits that are proven to aid in the protecting and obtaining of valuables.

Side: cognitive
zephyr20x6(2385) Clarified
1 point

You didn't really answer my question. In fact your argument counters the.position it takes it seems.

Cognitive means truth apt.

Non-cogntive means not truth apt.

Are moral statements truth statements? If so, how so?

Read my response to drawfour.... I should described the question of cognition in morality in the description...

Side: cognitive
1 point

You didn't really answer my question.

I think you have presented a false choice. I think most moral statements are only true under specific circumstances. Some few are true in every situation.

In fact your argument counters the.position it takes it seems.

Maybe it only seems like a fact then?....lol

Are moral statements truth statements?

They are supposed to be. Some are, some aren't

If so, how so?

When a moral statement is true, to behave accordingly will reliably aid in the protecting and obtaining of what the individual or group deems valuable.

Side: cognitive
1 point

If I'm understanding this correctly, I'd say definitely this side.

A 'moral' action is one we believe is right. It requires no thought to perform. For a person who could truly be considered moral, they would save another's life, if given the opportunity, with no hesitation, because it'd be as natural as instinct to them, with the idea that what they are doing is right, being hardwired into who they are as a person.

As a counter to a person who's non-cognitively moral, or not really moral because they are doing what's right not because they believe it's right, but because they know it's supposed to be right, is a person who would have to ask themselves before saving a person, if they should or should not. Just as an example.

In short, morality, true morality, requires no thought. It's ingrained into the person, if thought is required it's more than likely not being done sincerely, and I just wouldn't call that morality.

Side: non-cognitive
zephyr20x6(2385) Clarified
1 point

I get the feeling, you don't understand what I mean be cognitive, and non-cognitive. cognition of morality, has to do with how truth apt morality is. A non-cognitivist essentially believes that moral statements are not truth statements. A non-cognitivist believes morality are simply attitudes of approval and disapproval, and what you approve of or disapprove of is not truth.

The implications of this would essentially be that there is no such thing as "moral knowledge", nor is morality a purely logical process.

Knowledge is "justified, truth conviction" since moral statements don't express truth, you do not literally KNOW right from wrong, expressing what you approve of or disapprove of is not an expression of knowledge but merely what you approve of and disapprove of.

It is not ultimately logical to have any particular attitude of approval or disapproval, it is entirely dependent on your emotions, interests, and nature as a human being. The daring psychopath, feels not for any other sentient life, and the only thing that gives his life any meaning, or gives him enough joy to live is killing other people. So this daring psychopath goes on killing sprees because it is the best way for him to live, there is nothing inconsistent in his logic or reasoning, he is just that... a daring psychopath. Now empathetic people, whom wish to co-exist with other people, the logical conclusion of their nature is to oppose this man.

Now non-cognitivism is different from typical moral nihilists, because typical moral nihilism is generally "error theorist". The difference between error theory, and non-cognitivism is this: Error theorists believe all moral statements are automatically false; non-cognitivists believe all moral statements are neither true nor false. What is the difference? Error theorists reject morality in its entirety, they don't describe anything as right or wrong, where non-cognitivists can still describe things as right or wrong, but acknowledge that when they do so, they are just venting there feelings.

For better understand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-cognitivism

As for cognitivism, that is majority of moral philosophy you have heard, beyond moral nihilism. (e.g. moral absolutism, moral relativism, moral realism, etc)

Side: cognitive
Jace(5168) Clarified
2 points

Now non-cognitivism is different from typical moral nihilists, because typical moral nihilism is generally "error theorist". The difference between error theory, and non-cognitivism is this: Error theorists believe all moral statements are automatically false; non-cognitivists believe all moral statements are neither true nor false. What is the difference? Error theorists reject morality in its entirety, they don't describe anything as right or wrong, where non-cognitivists can still describe things as right or wrong, but acknowledge that when they do so, they are just venting there feelings.

In other words, the non-cognitivist recognizes morality as innately subjective but still acknowledges that it exists. I fail to see how this is actually any different than the moral nihilist who sees morality as a human construction and emotional projection, but understands that people obviously still subscribe to it. Is the difference that the non-cognitivist would still subscribe to morality personally or advocate for its utility? Or am I missing some other distinction?

Side: cognitive
DrawFour(2662) Clarified
1 point

Yes that did go straight over my head. I had never heard the word cognitive used outside brain functions so I had to google it to be sure. I got basically "to use thought" and ran with it. oops

Side: cognitive