Skip to content

Agreement In Belief And Agreement In Attitude

Personal uncertainty arises when a person is uns sure how to feel or what to do with an object or event, but wishes to feel or do something appropriate in relation to that object or event. For example, Smith is currently neither for nor against any particular bill, but he wants to know whether he is for or against the proposal so that she can vote responsibly. There is implicitly an interpersonal concordance in attitude when two or more people have attitudes that can all be satisfied together, or if there is no desire for them all to be satisfied (1944, 4-5; 1950, 55-60) and personal « certainties » arise when the individual has committed or has no desire to commit to it. how you feel or what you can do with a particular object or event (1963b, 191-194; 1950, 55-60). Interpersonal disagreements and personal insecurity in faith and attitude are therefore very different from the fact that « the former deal with how to describe and explain issues truthfully; The latter looks at how they should be favored or favored and, therefore, how they should be shaped by human effort » (1944, 4). Empty Expression objection. According to this objection, if strong emotivism is true, a spokeswoman who, for example, says « It`s bad » to express her moral judgment, but without having a negative attitude towards what is being referred to, « said nothing. » According to Blanshard, such a statement is « as empty as the word `hooray` if there was no enthusiasm behind it » (1949). This objection does not distinguish between sincere and dishonest acts. Take, for example, a speaker who knowingly laments by saying the phrase « Smith is at home. » Intuitively, the spokesperson expressed the belief that Smith is at home, although she is menting because of the hypothesis and therefore does not have that faith.

The reason for this is that it is a plausible condition for sincerely asserting that a person who claims that p believes; but one could certainly say that p, without believing that p. By analogy, a spokesman who pronounces « hurrah » intuitively expresses enthusiasm, because it is a plausible condition for sincere expression that a person who pronounces « Hurrah! » is enthusiastic. But one could certainly pronounce « hooray! » to express enthusiasm while remaining undetectable. Similarly, Stevenson would reply that a spokeswoman could not be touched and therefore incorrect when she said « It`s bad », while she would still express an unfavourable attitude by her remarks. « x » to be inserted by a term that designates an action, a person, a directive, etc.; « D » is replaced by a set of descriptible predicates; and « φ » should be either by an appropriate exclamation, opt-option or imperative phrase or replaced by a description of an emotional language rule (as in (P4)). Model instances of (G1): (i) the disposition relationships that emerge between ethical phrases and psychological states of faith and attitude; (ii) different degrees of descriptible precision; (iii) different degrees of descriptible complexity; (iv) theory of relativity of spokespeople with descriptive significance; (v) different degrees of emotional strength or frankness; and (vi) different attitudes, whether acts, people, etc., or any characteristics that may illustrate them. The instances of (G2) will model (i), v) and (vi) and recall that the descriptor meaning of ethical language can only be proposed by the use of ethical phrases and not by part of their conventional meanings. Stevenson`s wishes and generational arguments are also, at best, controversial. The desire argument seems to disintegrate into the internalist argument, as it is basically a call to internalist intuition that disagreement over whether to wish for something is essentially a disagreement in attitude…