Stevenson`s lusts and generational arguments are, at best, controversial. The argument of the ephemeral seems to be in the internalist argument, for it is basically a call for internal intuition that disagreement over the appropriateness of something is essentially a divergence of attitude. Finally, Stevenson himself acknowledges the relative weakness of the generational argument and acknowledges that the disparity in ethical opinions between individuals of different generations, etc., may just as well be explained, for example by disagreements in belief in the qualities or consequences of certain acts, persons, policies, etc. (1944, 18). Personal uncertainty in attitude occurs when a person is unsure of how they feel or should be on an object or event, but feel or want to do something suitable in relation to that object or event. At present, for example, Smith is not in a position to vote for or against a specific legislative proposal, but wants to decide whether he is for or against the proposal, so that he can vote responsibly. Interpersonal agreement occurs implicitly when two or more people have attitudes that can all be fulfilled together, or if there is no desire, etc. that they are all satisfied (1944, 4-5; 1950, 55-60), and that personal “safety” occurs in the attitude when a person has fixed or does not want to have a particular object or event, how they feel or what they should do about a particular object or event (1963b). , 191–194; 1950, 55–60). Interpersonal differences of opinion and personal uncertainty in faith and attitude therefore differ considerably in that “the former deals with how to describe and explain things truthfully; It is a question of how to favour them or make them unfavourable, and therefore how they should be shaped by human effort” (1944, 4).

When men come to believe in all the facts they have looked at, and if they continue to have different goals despite this … they will always have an ethical issue that is not resolved. But if they agree [in attitude], they will have put an end to their ethical question; And that will be the case, even if different beliefs… Still dubious. Both men may conclude that these remaining convictions, no matter how they are colonized later, will not have a decisive influence on their attitude. (1944, 14-15; see also 1948b, 6), where “x” must be pending by a term that refers to an action, a person, a policy, etc. “is D” is replaced by a set of descriptive predicates; and “φ,” either to enser with an appropriate sentence, optative or imperative, or to be replaced by a description of an emotional linguistic rule as described in (P4). Modeling instances of (G1): (i) the disposition relationships that exist between ethical phrases and psychological beliefs and attitudes; (ii) details of different descriptions; (iii) differences in the complexity of the description; (iv) the theory of the relativity of the spokesperson of descriptive importance; v) different degrees of emotional strength or candour; and (vi) different objects of attitude, whether they are actions, people, etc., or properties that can illustrate them.