Term
|
Definition
| Has a truth value (either true or false) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Expressive (used to express an emotion) or imperatival (used to command) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Nonsense statements (EX: tootie fruity a rootie) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Sentences of the form "x is good/bad" have no cognitive meaning. They are used to express positive/negative emotions and to command others to feel similar emotions. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A) "Murder is wrong!" = "Murder, ugh- I hate murder!"
B) "Murder is good!" = "Murder, yes! I dig murder!"
1) If radical emotivism is true, then there is no logical conflict between A and B.
2) But there is a logical conflict between A and B.
3) Radical emotivism is false. |
|
|
Term
| C.L. Stevenson's First Pattern of Analysis |
|
Definition
| For any person, S, if S says "x is good," then S means what S would mean if S were to say, in such a way as to evoke a favorable response in his hearer, "I feel moral approval for x" |
|
|
Term
| C.L. Stevenson's Second Pattern of Analysis |
|
Definition
| "This is good" has the meaning of, "this has qualities or relations, x, y, and z, so forth..." except that good has as well a mandatory emotive meaning that permits it to express the speaker's approval and tends to evoke the approval of the hearer. |
|
|
Term
| Differences between 1st and 2nd Patterns of Analysis |
|
Definition
| The 1st had an autobiographical self-describing component. The 2nd describes the qualities of a thing trying to persuade the hearer. |
|
|
Term
| What is Feldman's problem with the SPA? |
|
Definition
| Broad definitions of the word "good"- different people have their own personal meanings, but the SPA does not provide a meaning for the word. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Statements to guide actions- one cannot give conflicting demands |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Phrastic (leaves open for choice) and neustic (doesn't leave any options)- both statements include propositional content |
|
|
Term
| General form of Prescriptivism |
|
Definition
"All ____ being ____, please." (EX: all thieves being electrocuted, please- you can change any aught statement and change it into a prescriptive statement including please)
"All A's aught to be B's means that all A's being B's, please" -> B is a presupposed general rule |
|
|
Term
| First Problem against Prescriptivism (Negative statements) |
|
Definition
| There is no way to prove that the statement "It is wrong to electrocute all Jews" is wrong because as long as you are being consistent, there is no way to fault that moral view. |
|
|
Term
| Second Problem against Prescriptivism (Antique Chair at an Action Example) |
|
Definition
| I go to an auction and I'm interested in a chair- does my belief in this chair that it is good mean that I want other sto think it is good as well? No, because that would raise the price. You can want something thinking it is right but because you want it all to yourself, you do not want others to feel the same way. |
|
|
Term
| Third Problem of Prescriptivism (Problem of the Fanatic) |
|
Definition
| A person who is racist may will all minorities to be deported. But would he wish this upon himself if he were a minority? If no, he is inconsistently willing something. If yes, then it seems false. |
|
|
