Much of the plausibility of non-cognitivism in meta-ethics rests on the following argument derived from hume: 1) cognitive judgments alone can never have any motivational influence on our actions, 2) moral judgments have a motivational influence on our actions, and 3) therefore, no moral judgment is simply a cognitive judgment. this paper subjects various forms of this argument to criticism.

Let it be allowed, though virtue or moral rectitude does indeed consist in affection to and pursuit of what is right and good, as such; yet, that when we sit down in a cool hour, we can neither justify to ourselves this or any other pursuit, till we are convinced that it will be for our happiness, or at least not contrary to it.—Butler, Sermon XIThere are a number of different grounds on which philosophers have argued that the question “Should (...) I be moral?” is unintelligible or at least somewhat odd. Some evidently are unable to understand ‘should’ in any other way than ‘morally ought’, with the consequence that the question can admit of no answer but the affirmative. Others, influenced by the later Wittgenstein, hold that, although ‘should ’-questions have a role within the moral language game, the ‘should’ in the question above has no real function, it is like a ‘machine idling,’ and we can attribute no real sense to it. Now I consider neither of these arguments to be successful or even very plausible, but I do wish to consider a further argument which is logically independent of the above and which appears, initially at least, to be quite plausible. (shrink)

THE PROJECT OF THIS PAPER IS TO GIVE AN EXPLICIT DEFINITION OF 'PRIMA FACIE' DUTY EMPLOYING THE NOTION OF DUTY (SIMPLICITER) AS THE ONLY MORAL NOTION. THIS DEFINITION AVOIDS THE CIRCULARITY OF SOME DEFINITIONS WHILE ALSO BEING SUFFICIENTLY GENERAL SO AS NOT TO DEPEND ON THE ADOPTION OF ANY PARTICULAR MORAL VIEWPOINT. THIS PAPER ATTACKS THE VIEW THAT A MORAL PHILOSOPHER (OR AN ANTHROPOLOGIST DESCRIBING A MORAL CODE) CAN ALWAYS IN PRINCIPLE AVOID EMPLOYING THE NOTION OF A 'PRIMA FACIE' DUTY (...) SIMPLY BY GIVING A CAREFUL STATEMENT OF EACH RULE MAKING EXPLICIT ITS EXCEPTIONS. (shrink)

What response is to be given to the immoralist's question ‘Why should I be just?’? I say ‘response’ because it is not clear that the immoralist is looking for an answer. His question seems to be rhetorical, even contemptuous. It nevertheless presents a challenge to morality. The immoralist's position is that it is irrational to take justice and fairness seriously and that his own advantage or self-interest is the only rational consideration for him. This is not a moral position although (...) it is a normative position; the immoralist has an alternative to the moral life but not an alternative morality. The immoralist is not a moralist with idiosyncratic views on what is just and fair—what he might call ‘true’ justice or ‘natural’ justice. On the contrary, where some co-operative mutually beneficial project is involved he presumably recognizes what is fair much as we all do. What he does not recognize is the rationality of being fair. Nor is this because he thinks there is some other consideration which overrides justice in this particular case. He does not deal with our complaint ‘But that isn't fair!’ by presenting other, allegedly overriding, considerations. Rather, such a complaint is not granted an initial relevance. ‘Why should I be just?’ he says. (shrink)