sure, you could call me an amateur noncognitivist, i guess. but i couldn’t give you any reasons that aren’t already stated in the article, accessible to anyone. as far as i know (and i’ve looked around quite a bit), noncognitivism and its branches - e.g., emotivism and quasi-realism - are as far as ethical theory can go.
one would think this is very dangerous to morality, but in fact it’s quite innocuous. people don’t behave in correspondence to some abstract entities out in the world called ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, in the first place (although they think they do). so, it’s no loss to explain, as noncognitivism does, that there are no such entities. what guides people’s behavior is a hedonistic calculus. people are natural consequentialists who want to avoid pain and displeasure and attain gratification and satisfaction. but none of this is done ‘out of principle’, for such things are just abstractions and have no real substance. man is really just a simplistic pavlonian dog that learns how to behave, and what ‘principles’ to attribute to such behavior - these things be culturally relative - through operant conditioning.
this history of the philosophy of ethics and morality had been an attempt of vanity to over-complicate this matter as a result of the embarrassment man has felt at the knowledge of his mechanistic simplicity. he doesn’t want to believe this is it. he wants to enrich his morality and therefore his essence by transcending such simplicity and pretending as if there is some metaphysical depth to his being. but the truth is, he isn’t even shallow. well okay sure, he’s shallow… i guess we can give him that much, at least.