ABSTRACT
Non-cognitivists in metaethics hold that moral judgments consist in desire-like states such as approvals/disapprovals and plans rather than belief-like states. Non-cognitivists have argued that we can only plausibly interpret many moral disagreements as moral disagreement if we accept non-cognitivism. In this chapter we discuss this argument and cognitivist responses to this argument. We also discuss another argument from interpretation made by relativists. Relativists argue that the best interpretation of experimental data concerning non-philosophers judgments about disagreement and inconsistency implies relativism. This chapter discuss whether this is the case.
