[BLANK_AUDIO] So, let's start from this position. The idea I mentioned before. That ethics is essentially up to each of us.

So, if you think that abortion is wrong and some, you think that abortion is right. There's no truth between the two of you. It's individually subjective. And in that sense, it's just like other things that are subjective, of which the classic examples would be matters of taste, okay. You like a lot of garlic on your pizza and you don't like garlic on your pizza. There's no point in arguing about that. You know, you have the pizza the way, the way you like it, and you can have the pizza the way you like it. And you just wouldn't get into a real discussion there. You know, you might say look just taste this don't, you know, savor it. Roll it around your tongue. Don't you think it's really great? But if the other person does that and says, no it's still repulsive. There's nothing much more that you can do. So... Perhaps ethics is, in some way, like that. Now, as I say, there's various labels for different views, which are, again, I'm not going to go into details. If you read Rachel's, you'll get some understanding of at least some of these. So, what I've been talking about is subjectivism in general, that ethical judgments depend on the individual subject. Non-cognitivism is typically a way of saying there's nothing really to be known. So it draws a contrast between things which are matters of knowledge. It might be very difficult things of knowledge, but there's still matters of knowledge. So for example do human emissions of carbon dioxide effect the climate of the planet. That's a matter of knowledge. There's perhaps, perhaps there's some room for dispute, whether they do or don't. But, there is a truth about that. There must be a truth and no doubt eventually, the science.

they going to do horrible things. Expressivism also like that says moral judgments are expressions. if you like. or this family of views. We're just expressing our emotional attitudes. it still doesn't totally explain the situation because it might matter more. so anti-realism is on this same side. And realism and anti-realism are pretty obvious. they are more momentous. So. from expressions or emotions. And what you have to think about is well. Immotivism as the term suggests says that really we're expressing our emotions when we make ethical judgments. if the science is not already settled. But. But according to some views in ethics it's not like that. which purport to state facts. If they don't think that certain things are wrong. it matters more. They claim that there's. They're not statements. Okay. there's nothing real. we think we would eventually realize but there's nothing more to be said. Why don't we just treat them as matters of taste? One response here is to say well. So that. there's nothing to be known. we do seem to have more discussion and more argument about ethical differences than we do about differences of taste. Obviously. our differences in ethical judgments are like differences in taste. at the very least. That corresponds to the truth of an ethical judgment. So you can distinguish statements. But still. those who want to defend this view. there's nothing out there in the world. what people think are right or wrong. The science will be settled. It matters to us and to other people. Need to explain why we persist in trying to argue about ethical views. So it matters more. . no cognitive content to it. And the rest of us don't want them to do those horrible things.If it's not.

And we'd stop arguing about it. . as in fact we do through the criminal law. So that's the difficulty the subjectivists have. But we wouldn't continue to argue about it. unless we try to coerce people who do really bad things.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful