Text 1: Metaethicist Dr. Sarah Wells defends cognitivism. "Moral statements express beliefs that can be true or false," Wells argues. "When we say 'torture is wrong,' we assert a fact. Moral discourse aims at truth."
Text 2: Non-cognitivist Dr. James Park analyzes moral language. "Moral statements express attitudes, not beliefs," Park contends. "'Torture is wrong' expresses disapproval and urges others to disapprove. No truth-evaluable claim is made."
What is the fundamental disagreement between Wells and Park about moral statements?
Whether people make moral statements
Whether moral statements express beliefs capable of being true or false
Whether torture is actually wrong
Whether disapproval is an emotional state
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the correct answer. Wells says moral statements express truth-apt beliefs. Park says they express non-truth-apt attitudes. Same statements, different analysis of what they do.
- Evidence: Wells: moral statements "can be true or false"; Park: "no truth-evaluable claim."
- Reasoning: The disagreement is about moral language's function.
- Conclusion: Truth-aptness of moral statements is the core dispute.
Choice A is incorrect because both analyze moral statements. Choice C is incorrect because both use torture as an example. Choice D is incorrect because disapproval's nature isn't the dispute.