What is your answer?
Ima Emotivist thinks that the reason we can't define "good" in descriptive terms is that
{ 1 } - "good" is emotional.
{ 2 } - "good" is ambiguous.
{ 3 } - "good" is an objective, irreducible concept.
{ 4 } - none of the above -- she defines "good" as "empirical."
<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 4.
1 is correct!
Ima Emotivist thinks that the reason we can't define "good" in descriptive terms is that
{ 1 } - "good" is emotional.
{ 2 } - "good" is ambiguous.
{ 3 } - "good" is an objective, irreducible concept.
{ 4 } - none of the above -- she defines "good" as "empirical."
Since "good" is emotional, it's not equivalent to descriptive phrases (like "socially approved") that doesn't express positive or negative feelings.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Before continuing, you might try some wrong answers.
2 is wrong. Please try again.
Ima Emotivist thinks that the reason we can't define "good" in descriptive terms is that
{ 1 } - "good" is emotional.
{ 2 } - "good" is ambiguous.
{ 3 } - "good" is an objective, irreducible concept.
{ 4 } - none of the above -- she defines "good" as "empirical."
This isn't what she says.
<= back | menu | forward =>
3 is wrong. Please try again.
Ima Emotivist thinks that the reason we can't define "good" in descriptive terms is that
{ 1 } - "good" is emotional.
{ 2 } - "good" is ambiguous.
{ 3 } - "good" is an objective, irreducible concept.
{ 4 } - none of the above -- she defines "good" as "empirical."
This is what intuitionists hold.
<= back | menu | forward =>
4 is wrong. Please try again.
Ima Emotivist thinks that the reason we can't define "good" in descriptive terms is that
{ 1 } - "good" is emotional.
{ 2 } - "good" is ambiguous.
{ 3 } - "good" is an objective, irreducible concept.
{ 4 } - none of the above -- she defines "good" as "empirical."
Have you been sniffing the glue in Ima's chemistry lab?
<= back | menu | forward =>
the end