Greg Detre
4/5/01
how reason-based is Kant�s system??? would Hume�s attacks have hit home???
for Kant, moral rules are synthetic, not analytic
Hume�s contemporaries made a more ontological claim about morals
e.g. Samuel Clarke
his argument for emotivism
importance of reason with regard to passion + action
the rules of morality are not based on reason
reason as the minor premise???
reason + beliefs never � action
beliefs are motivationally inert
action = belief + desire
Humean philosophy of action
\ it must be the desire-based component that constitutes morals
Ayers� oposition <= logical positivism
morals aren't propositions
in both cases, morals aren't objective or true/false
non-cognitivist
realism + anti-realism � ontological distinction
cognitivism + non-cognitivism
realist � mind-independent moral facts out there
cognitivism � relating to language, moral judgements
state propositions and one belief, \ = T/F
non-cognitivists � deny moral judgements do something other than stating propositions
e.g. emotivism, prescriptivism (Hare � imperatives aren't T/F)
orthodox subjectivism/objectivism - realists
Ayer � couldn't exert pressure of argument rationally on murderer
just say �boo�
moral language provides inherent persuasion, non-rational, like propaganda
change sentiments by using persuasive moral discussion
Rorty emotivist??? post-modernist view
all trying to express our WTP
more detailed psychology
explains the way morality influences behaviour very well
in ordinary discourse, we sound like realist/cognitive
we�re not persuading by reference to moral standard, but just appealing to gullibility + sympathy
dressing up our gut feelings, like football supporters
Rawls � reflective equilibrium
moral intuitions � about real truths � agnostic about realism
can be objective morals without ontological realism,
fact vs moral fact
objective vs subjective � like PQ/SQ
why agree???
similar phys, similar experiences, developed emotive responses along same lines � Hume human nature, self-interest vs sympathy