Well, sure, you can double-down and bite the bullet. But can you see why someone might find the theory unappealing? It seems somewhat elaborate and unnecessary to claim its all emotion, on the face of things, and goes against what we mean by moral statements. — Moliere
So your task would be to explain either how we get to "x is human well being" without it being a judgment, preference, evaluative property etc., — Terrapin Station
...they probably do mean "it is good' is true', — Janus
Insofar as people believe that moral utterances can be true or false they're simply mistaken. They have mistaken beliefs about the ontology of moral utterances. — Terrapin Station
My approach is that true claims correspond to actual events(what has happened or is happening).
...When one tells another that there is a cat on the mat, if they're speaking sincerely and truthfully, then there ought be a cat on the mat.
Meaning is important here. — creativesoul
Similarly, actions can conceivably be moral (or not) absent any explanation or even recognition of that. — Andrew M
I would argue that anyone who holds that moral utterances cannot be true or false have mistaken beliefs about thought and belief. — creativesoul
Conceivability needs a bit more detail than just stipulating that something is conceivable, no? — Terrapin Station
Sure, and then what you'd offer as empirical support would be? — Terrapin Station
Even if that were the case, anything with an intentional property isn't going to be objective — Terrapin Station
Why don't people just say "yay" or "boo"? — Andrew M
so too can humans act in ways that increase or decrease well-being. — Andrew M
The spirit in which it's forwarded is akin to a scientific examination. It's not based on whether anyone finds it appealing or not. We want to know what the phenomenon really is. — Terrapin Station
Besides neglecting statements and all this above, emotivism cannot take account of conflicting wants/preferences and moral duty. — creativesoul
The problem with emotivism is that it does not account for moral phenomena -- in particular, it does not explain why it is that people hold moral beliefs as if they are true or false. It misses out on the semantics of moral statements: they are true or false. Perhaps, in the end, moral phenomena are decided by emotions, and emotions are non-cognitive, so how people reason about moral phenomena is through non-cognitive means. But this still leaves out the fact that moral statements are of the form of propositions, and that people treat them as if they are true. — Moliere
People use gustatory language as if gustatory properties were objective ("the pizza is delicious"). — ChrisH
Again, if someone thinks that kicking the pup is fine, then I wouldn't say they have a different preference to me in the way I like vanilla and they like banana. I, and I hope you, would say rather that there was something quite wrong with them. — Banno
feelings — Terrapin Station
I also used the word "judgment" by the way. — Terrapin Station
First, people don't normally just say "Yay pizza" or whatever. They say things like "Pizza tastes good," "Pizza is the best," etc. Do you believe that by virtue of that, "Pizza tastes good" is significantly different than "Yay pizza" would be? — Terrapin Station
so too can humans act in ways that increase or decrease well-being.
— Andrew M
Re this, what does it have to do with morality? — Terrapin Station
People use gustatory language as if gustatory properties were objective ("the pizza is delicious").
People use language inconsistently. — ChrisH
Apply the open question... Are well-being and good the very same? Could one have well-being and yet not be good? Could one be good and yet not have well-being? — Banno
Is it good to rely on such extensive exegesis? Does this make one's moral choices more transparent or simply fog them over? — Banno
Is it good to rely on such extensive exegesis? Does this make one's moral choices more transparent or simply fog them over? — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.