Argument For Non-Cognitivism
- Moral judgements motivate intrinsically
- Beliefs don’t motivate intrinsically Therefore, moral judgements aren’t beliefs (they’re desires)
Counter Arguments
Reject Premise 1 - Amoralism
The butcher believes the goodness of life, but does not have any motivation to not slaughter. In this case, morality is like etiquette, its just a set of rules to follow. Its like, I know morality requires me to not murder but I don’t care at all.
Defense of Premise 1 - Scare Quotes
Just like what seems “cool” and “fashionable” for a highschool girl, the same standards do not apply to a middle aged man. You can believe that it is “cool”. You can believe in those standards but not endorse those standards yourself. So, similar to morality, you can say things are ‘wrong’, but not follow that standard.
Defense of Premise 1 - Conceptual Incompetence
The amorality lacks some moral senses. They are similar to Colorblind people who lack the inhibitors to have a full comprehension of color. The amoralist is then missing a key inhibitor of morality.
Defense of Premise 1 - Skepticism of Amoralism
Kagan does not believe that anybody can really be amoral. He thinks it is not possible for a rational being to be amoral and have no motivation at all to follow morality.
Reject Premise 2 - Pluralist view
Beliefs motivate beliefs without desires, why can’t they motivate action? Normative Claims are truths about what we should do. If we believe in those then we should believe in what it tell us. Moral Facts are a subset of normative facts. So, moral beliefs should be able to motivate us directly without need for desire.
Reject Premise 2 - Radical view
It is only having a desire and having a belief to act on that desire that gets you motivation. Normative beliefs have this property
Reject Premise 2 - Besire
If there is a state of mind that is both a belief and desire, in other words, believing in a desire, then we can have moral statements that motivate intrinsically. This seems quite impossible.