Talk:Cognitivism (ethics)

Philosophy: Ethics / Language Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics
	Philosophy of language

I question whether this change is an improvement. I have had some discussions with its author, see User talk:MetaChimp, and it seems that he didn't know of uses of the word ejaculation other than the biological, nor did Wikipedia document them at all well (we did mention them indirectly, see the disambig notice at the top of this old version).

To change this to exclamation seems to me to reduce the value of the example considerably. Perhaps interjection would be better, the problem here is that an interjection is a part of speech rather than an utterance. So I'd prefer to go back to ejaculation, with the wikilink as shown to the new stub at ejaculation (grammar). Other thoughts? Andrewa 21:23, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was aware that ejaculation can be used as an expression, just as thou can be used as a more personal form of you. However, imagine the response of my college educated girlfriend, if I were to continually tell her "I love thou". It is no longer used as a normative term.

Just because a word technically CAN be used, doesn't mean that it SHOULD be used. I am suggesting that ejaculation has lost this grammatical use in our current culture.

This was re-enforced by the wikipedia definition of ejaculation at the time of my edit.

I do, however, support your new ejaculation (grammar) stub, because in another few decades, this will be one of the few references to a forgotten history of the word.

case in point: HEY! This has been another ejaculation by MetaChimp 19:29, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

(what normative meaning does that imply?)

I dunno if this helps, but I saw that word used in that sense in a Harry Potter book, and they don't use thou in that. Whistler 23:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Non-cognitivism[edit]

This article obviously needs to be merged with non-cognitivism. As Aristotle once wrote, opposites are subject to the same science. Velho 00:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True, but are opposites subject to the same article? Both articles are of sufficient length anyway. Run! 14:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I completely disagree. Non-cognitivism in ethics is the obvious foil to the everyday view of moral-realism. Non-cognitivism certainly comes before cognitivism and is clearly no derivation from nor reaction to, it. Keep non-cognitivism as its own entry.

I also disagree. Non-cognitivism deserves a distinct and detailed entry becuase it is not a simple jumble of thoughts reacting to cognitivism - it is a substantial part of the current discussion in meta-ethics and the implications of non-cognitivism can be felt throughout many philosophical disciplines. I would suggest that those interested read Moral Vision, by David McNaughton, or The View from Nowhere, by Thomas Nagel. Both these books are relatively accessible while managing to be academically solid on the subject of the cognitivism/non-cognitivism debate.

Oppose merging, other opposites have separate articles, especially if their opposition is not the main reason for one or the other to exist, or if each article reaches a sufficient length. See even derivations of cognitivism: Ethical naturalism and Ethical non-naturalism. Since not a single user has agreed with the proposal to merge while the flags have been up more than half a year, I'm removing the flags 'proposed to merge' from both articles. SomeHuman 2006-08-01 00:08 (UTC)

Ethics and games[edit]

"One answer is that we may want ethical statements to be categorically true, while we only need statements about right action to be contingent on the acceptance of the rules of a particular game - that is, the choice to play the game according to a given set of rules."

I've just fixed the link to categorical syllogism, but I guess this whole sentence needs some attention. 1) Perhaps the right opposition is not between "categorical" and "contigent", but between some different concepts. 2) I'm not sure what "the acceptance of rules" means. For instance, I assert, because it's true, that Topalov drew against Gelfand yesterday, but I didn't accept any rules regarding that game, and it is not clear why their acceptance is relevant to the difference between categorical and contingent. Velho 18:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intro[edit]

Aren't skepticism, subjectivism, relativism, and nihilism forms of non-cognitivism since they deny that there are moral, objective truths? Suggest deletion. User:Tristen 196.209.34.75 12:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supporters of this school[edit]

Are there any notable cognitivists? This whole article seems to describe a philosophy that almost everyone disagrees with. Is it a theoretical position only (i.e., a strawman)? Boris B (talk) 08:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the recent philpapers survey can be trusted, about 58% of respondents accept or lean toward cognitivism, while only 20.7% of respondents accept or lean toward noncognitivism (with 21.1% preferring the "Other" option). That data appears to be strongly inconsistent with your intuitions about what everyone disagrees with. 68.125.109.178 (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]