Question

The passage explores the question of whether individuals without moral knowledge can still determine the best course of action. It delves into the perspectives of moral non-cognitivists and error theorists, discussing concepts like quasi-realism and quasi-cognitivism. The passage considers the role of emotions, especially in theories where emotions themselves have cognitive character. It touches on the historical view of emotions, such as the Stoics' belief that emotions are false judgments. The discussion also raises challenges in distinguishing between non-cognitivism and cognitivist subjectivism, proposing ideas like quasi-rational emotions and quasi-knowable quasi-propositions. The passage ends by mentioning attempts by noncognitivists to reconcile with cognitivism, such as the idea that desires ground normative beliefs. Additionally, it briefly references Ayer's stance on moral discourse and Jorgensen's dilemma, which questions the logic of imperative mood inferences. The paragraph is rich in philosophical exploration but intricate and may require careful consideration to grasp its nuances fully. According to the passage, what is a key question posed regarding individuals without moral knowledge?

a. Can they determine the best course of action?

b. Are they inherently moral non-cognitivists?

c. Do they lack the capacity for emotional reasoning?

d. Are they prone to making illogical decisions?

Answer 1

The passage examines whether individuals without moral knowledge can determine the best course of action by exploring perspectives from various philosophers on moral reasoning influenced by sentiments, culture, and emotions.

Step-by-step explanation:

The passage primarily addresses the key question of whether individuals lacking moral knowledge can adequately determine the best course of action. Philosophers such as Hume and Kant, alongside various philosophical traditions like non-cognitivism and emotivism, provide a broad context for understanding the debate.

Hume argues that morality is based on sentiments rather than factual certainties, thereby distinguishing between facts and moral judgments. Kant’s categorical imperative, on the other hand, provides a framework for moral reasoning that can be universally applied. Emotivism considers moral statements as expressions of emotional reactions rather than cognitive beliefs.

Contemporary thinkers like Michelle Moody-Adams advocate for a 'cautious optimism' about moral objectivity despite cultural disagreements. Antonio Damasio's work illustrates that rational thought is often intertwined with emotions, suggesting a complex relationship between feelings and moral reasoning. In the light of these perspectives, ethical principles and the assessment of actions may depend on a blend of individual sentiments, cultural norms, and rational deliberations. This multifaceted dialogue forms the backdrop for considering the capabilities of individuals without moral knowledge in making ethical decisions.