As to tailoring the ethics to the person, it seem to me that it's the flaws of the person that are the reason for there being ethics. If you go person-centric, you have no ground on which to either judge or critique anyone else for acting on their version of their own ethics. — tim wood

So, If it is true that these non-cognitivist theories are ineffective due to the fact that morals become egocentric and judged upon the person themselves, then it must be true that you believe that people must share moral judgement. If this is true then you must believe that ethical theories - such as Kant's ethics - must be a set of rules that must be followed objectively by everyone. If not, then you run into a contradiction. If you don't believe that moral judgments are a set of rules then you believe that people can both abide and not abide by these moral judgments. People that do not abide by these rules are are then taking on the non-cognitivist attitude and judging based upon their own moral judgments. But, you cannot not believe this and also claim that Kant's deontology is not a set of rules because you must believe that his moral statements apply to everyone, therefore preventing them from creating, and abiding by, their own moral judgement.

This is not an attack, just an argument that shows how you seem to have gone in a loop of which you must believe that either Kant's ethics are a set of rules or that Emotivism and Prescriptivism are applicable theories - which you have just expressed that you believe that they are not.

In what sense do you find them inflexible - how would you like them to bend? — tim wood

I find them inflexible in the sense that you are essentially forced to complete a certain action in conflicting duties. For example, Imagine your friend was ill with cancer and the only way to save her would be to steal an antidote which is in the possession of your mother. You are conflicted between saving life and stealing. Kant's ethics would say that you shouldn't use others as a mean to your ends according to the second formulation - meaning that you shouldn't steal the antidote from your mother. Meaning that you would have to let your friend die. Is this a moral act? Therefore, shows the inflexibility of Kant's ethics.

Furthermore, consider the axeman case. (Your friend is at your home one day. You get a knock on your door. It is a man with a sharp axe in his hand looking angry, asking for your friend. If you lie and say he is not in the house, perhaps your friend hears the man asking for him, he panics and leaves through the back door only to encounter the man after he left because you lied to him. Had you told the truth, perhaps the axeman would have come in the house looking for your friend and doesn't find him because he has already left. Therefore you saved his life by following the categorical imperative.) This is a prime example of how Kant intends for you to follow the categorical imperative, implying that it is a rule. If you were to break the rule it would have resulted in your friend dying.

Also, the fact that you must rely on your friend overhearing the conversation and leaving the house would seem too remote from actual happenings and perhaps too much of a coincidence. The reason why I use this particular example is because this is a popular example to support Kant's deontology.

I hope I have been clear enough :) If there is anything you are having trouble with understanding, please let me know and I can clarify.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.