Philosophical Studies

, Volume 160, Issue 2, pp 191–207

Normative uncertainty for non-cognitivists

Article

Abstract

Normative judgments involve two gradable features. First, the judgments themselves can come in degrees; second, the strength of reasons represented in the judgments can come in degrees. Michael Smith has argued that non-cognitivism cannot accommodate both of these gradable dimensions. The degrees of a non-cognitive state can stand in for degrees of judgment, or degrees of reason strength represented in judgment, but not both. I argue that (a) there are brands of noncognitivism that can surmount Smith’s challenge, and (b) any brand of non-cognitivism that has even a chance of solving the Frege–Geach Problem and some related problems involving probabilistic consistency can also thereby solve Smith’s problem. Because only versions of non-cognitivism that can solve the Frege–Geach Problem are otherwise plausible, all otherwise plausible versions of noncognitivism can meet Smith’s challenge.

Keywords

Non-cognitivism Normative uncertainty Frege–Geach Problem Michael Smith Expressivism 

References

  1. Ayer, A. J. (1952). Language, truth, and logic. Mineola, NY: Dover.Google Scholar
  2. Blackburn, S. (1984). Spreading the word. Oxford: Oxford.Google Scholar
  3. Bykvist, K., & Olson, J. (2009). Expressivism and moral certitude. Philosophical Quarterly, LIX, 202–215.Google Scholar
  4. Dreier, J. (2006). Negation for expressivists: A collection of problems with a suggestion for their solution. In R. Shafer-Landau (Ed.), Oxford studies in metaethics (Vol. 1, pp. 217–233). Oxford: Oxford.Google Scholar
  5. Gibbard, A. (2003). Thinking how to live. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.Google Scholar
  6. Guerrero, A. (2007). Don’t know, don’t kill: Moral ignorance, culpability, and caution. Philosophical Studies, CXXXVI, 59–97.Google Scholar
  7. Horgan, T., & Timmons, M. (2006). Cognitivist expressivism. In T. Horgan & M. Timmons (Eds.), Metaethics after Moore. New York: Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lenman, J. (2003). Non-cognitivism and the dimensions of evaluative judgement. In J. Dreier & D. Estlund (Eds.), Brown electronic article review service. www.brown.edu/Departments/Philosophy/bears/homepage.html. Accessed 4 Oct 2010.
  9. Lockhart, T. (2000). Moral uncertainty and its consequences. New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
  10. Ridge, M. (2003). Certitude, robustness, and importance for non-cognitivists. In J. Dreier & D. Estlund (Eds.), Brown electronic article review service. www.brown.edu/Departments/Philosophy/bears/homepage.html. Accessed 4 Oct 2010.
  11. Ridge, M. (2007). Ecumenical expressivism: The best of both worlds? In R. Shafer-Landau (Ed.), Oxford studies in metaethics (Vol. 2). New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
  12. Ross, J. (2006). Rejecting ethical deflationism. Ethics, CXVI, 742–768.Google Scholar
  13. Schroeder, M. (2008). Being for: Evaluating the semantic program of expressivism. NewYork: Oxford.Google Scholar
  14. Sepielli, A. (2009). What to do when you don’t know what to do. In R. Shafer-Landau (Ed.), Oxford studies in metaethics (Vol. 4, pp. 5–28). New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
  15. Sepielli, A. (2012). Why we need subjective normativity. In M. Timmons (Ed.), Oxford studies in normative ethics (Vol. 2). New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
  16. Smith, M. (2002). Evaluation, uncertainty, and motivation. Ethical theory and moral practice, V, 305–320.Google Scholar
  17. Unwin, N. (1999). Quasi-realism, negation, and the Frege–Geach Problem. Philosophical Quarterly, 49, 337–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. van Roojen, M. (1996). Expressivism and irrationality. Philosophical Review CV, 311–335.Google Scholar
  19. Wright, C. (1988). Realism, anti-realism, irrealism, and quasi-realism. In P. French, T. Uehling, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Midwest studies in philosophy, XII. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  20. Yalcin, S. (2011). Non-factualism about epistemic modality. In A. Egan & B. Weatherson (Eds.), Epistemic modality. New York: Oxford.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations