Is non-cognitivism or cognitivism the better framework for understanding moral judgments?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is non-cognitivism or cognitivism the better framework for understanding moral judgments?". Your opponent's style: Socratic Philosopher

lay out the argument for non-cognitivsm

Non-cognitivism claims moral statements aren't true or false—they're expressions of emotion or commands, like "Boo to murder!" Problem is, that collapses morality into mere preference. Why should I care about your feelings over mine?

Cognitivism asserts that moral statements can be true or false, grounding morality in rational discourse rather than mere emotional expressions. Non-cognitivism's reduction of morality to preference undermines our ability to engage in meaningful ethical discussions. If moral statements are just feelings, there’s no basis for moral accountability or shared values. Thus, your claim that one should care about feelings over facts is problematic; moral truths provide a foundation for ethical behavior, beyond subjective preferences.

You've mistaken the game. Cognitivism assumes moral "facts" exist somewhere—but where? Show me the moral fact floating in the universe. Physicists don't find it, mathematicians don't calculate it. You're just calling your preferences "truths" to make them sound objective. Non-cognitivism is honest: when you say "murder is wrong," you're expressing a stance we share, not discovering some cosmic law. That shared stance grounds accountability perfectly. Your "rational discourse" is just dressed-up emotion anyway.

Cognitivism posits that moral truths are grounded in rational arguments and shared human experiences rather than subjective feelings. While you claim moral facts don't exist in a physical sense, they are derived from ethical reasoning, societal consensus, and human well-being. This allows for accountability that transcends mere preferences. Saying "murder is wrong" reflects a shared understanding of human rights, not just emotional expression. Thus, your stance on non-cognitivism lacks the objective foundation necessary for consistent moral reasoning.

You're smuggling in the very thing you claim to justify. "Ethical reasoning" about what? Human well-being—but that's a *preference*, not a fact. Why should well-being matter morally? Because it feels important. You've just hidden emotion under fancier language. Non-cognitivism admits this: we *care* about suffering, so we condemn murder. That shared caring is real and binding. Your "objective foundation" is phantom—you can't derive an "ought" from any "is" without smuggling in values first. I'm honest about the ground. You're not.