Do questions like "Why should I be moral?" or "Why shouldn't I be selfish?" Have definite answers as do some questions in other areas of knowledge? Does having a definite answer make a question more or less important?
Some questions do not have definite answers and are usually judgments of value. This means that they cannot be proved true or false, they include; religious judgments, aesthetic judgments and moral judgments. They aspire to be as definite as judgments of fact. However it is debatable as to whether them not having a definite answer makes them more or less important. We find that as we discover the answers to new scientific questions we can expand our knowledge. However it is the questions that we cannot answer that which are remembered most prominently in history and that inspire films and literature, for example what is beauty? This essay will discuss whether all questions can have a definite answer and whether having a definite answer makes a question more or less important.
Judgments of fact are the only one which can have definite answers; they can be proven true or false. They can be either inductive or deductive. Inductive is scientific and is bases on empirical evidence, evidence from the senses. It is contingent and not as definite as deductive as the senses can lie and laboratory experiments are constantly changing in light of new measuring devices and other equipment. Deductive reasoning is from logic and mathematics and is definite. Truths derived from logic or mathematics are referred to as apriori truths, meaning they do not refer to human experience.
Judgments of value, however, are different, in that they cannot be proven true or false. There are three types of judgments of value; aesthetic judgments, religious judgment and moral judgments. Judgments of value are subjective and culturally relevant. All three aspire to have the same status as judgments of fact, to be able to be proven true or false. Ayer1 said that because they are not logically consistent they are non-sensical and that all judgments of value are non-cognitive anti-realist, they are not based on logic and are not based on experience or apriori truths. Ayer believed that you cannot state a judgment of value as a fact. For example in saying 'you were wrong for stealing the money.' Ayer believed that all you could be saying was that 'you stole the money'. The only difference between that and simply saying 'you stole the money' is the tone of voice you put in it. This would be you expressing your emotion toward the act. This theory is called emotivism and is by A.J. Ayer and C.L. Stevenson. The problem with this is that it means there is no room for a moral disagreement. If people disagree on the matter, they do not say that the act was right or wrong only that they did or did not like the fact that the person did something and therefore there can be no argument. The reason for this absence of a disagreement is that because there are no facts in judgments of value there cannot be any argument, as we can only argue over facts.
Some questions do not have definite answers and are usually judgments of value. This means that they cannot be proved true or false, they include; religious judgments, aesthetic judgments and moral judgments. They aspire to be as definite as judgments of fact. However it is debatable as to whether them not having a definite answer makes them more or less important. We find that as we discover the answers to new scientific questions we can expand our knowledge. However it is the questions that we cannot answer that which are remembered most prominently in history and that inspire films and literature, for example what is beauty? This essay will discuss whether all questions can have a definite answer and whether having a definite answer makes a question more or less important.
Judgments of fact are the only one which can have definite answers; they can be proven true or false. They can be either inductive or deductive. Inductive is scientific and is bases on empirical evidence, evidence from the senses. It is contingent and not as definite as deductive as the senses can lie and laboratory experiments are constantly changing in light of new measuring devices and other equipment. Deductive reasoning is from logic and mathematics and is definite. Truths derived from logic or mathematics are referred to as apriori truths, meaning they do not refer to human experience.
Judgments of value, however, are different, in that they cannot be proven true or false. There are three types of judgments of value; aesthetic judgments, religious judgment and moral judgments. Judgments of value are subjective and culturally relevant. All three aspire to have the same status as judgments of fact, to be able to be proven true or false. Ayer1 said that because they are not logically consistent they are non-sensical and that all judgments of value are non-cognitive anti-realist, they are not based on logic and are not based on experience or apriori truths. Ayer believed that you cannot state a judgment of value as a fact. For example in saying 'you were wrong for stealing the money.' Ayer believed that all you could be saying was that 'you stole the money'. The only difference between that and simply saying 'you stole the money' is the tone of voice you put in it. This would be you expressing your emotion toward the act. This theory is called emotivism and is by A.J. Ayer and C.L. Stevenson. The problem with this is that it means there is no room for a moral disagreement. If people disagree on the matter, they do not say that the act was right or wrong only that they did or did not like the fact that the person did something and therefore there can be no argument. The reason for this absence of a disagreement is that because there are no facts in judgments of value there cannot be any argument, as we can only argue over facts.
