In math how do you know that if A = B and B= C that A = C. That's a premise. And it's taken to be true because it's not provable. Same thing in reasoning with moral statements. — khaled

You're arguing that mathematical statements can't be true or false? That truth value is a category error for them?

You're arguing that mathematical statements can't be true or false? — Terrapin Station

No. I'm saying that in every single reasoned argument about anything there is a starting premise taken to be true. Math was an example. This starting premise can be anything. Including moral statements

No. — khaled

Then the analogy doesn't work. Moral statements can not be true or false.

Why not? How do you know that if A = B and B= C that A = C is true?

You just said to forget about that. If you're not forgetting about it then we're back to trying to make sense of the initial comment. — Terrapin Station

Ok let's go back

Why not? — khaled

Because there's nothing to get correct or incorrect. It's simply an utterance re how an individual feels towards the behavior in question. You can't get that correct or incorrect. However one feels is how one feels.

Because there's nothing to get correct or incorrect. It's simply an utterance re how an individual feels towards the behavior in question. You can't get that correct or incorrect. However one feels is how one feels. — Terrapin Station

A moral statement is not necessarily a statement of how one feels. I think moral statements arise from taking what many many people feel in common and trying to find the fewest possible principles to get you to that commonality

A moral statement is not necessarily a statement of how one feels. — khaled

Yeah, it is. That's what they are ontologically.

Yeah, it is. That's what they are ontologically. — Terrapin Station

So all thieves think theft is morally ok? Does that mean they wouldn't mind if someone robbed them? Just saying "emotivism is the case" doesn't make it the case.

Wait a second I don't think I'm making sense (it's 3 am)

So all thieves think theft is morally ok? — khaled

You have an ask an individual to see what their moral views are. It's not as if everyone has the same moral views just because they fit under a classification such as "thief."

Does that mean they wouldn't mind if someone robbed them? — khaled

Surely some have views such as "Theft is okay in circumstance x" etc.

Just saying "emotivism is the case" doesn't make it the case. — khaled

Of course. The way the world happens to be makes it the case. You say it because you want to get correct what the world is like.

For you does this sound like an argument?

P1:Murder is wrong
P2:Hiring someone to kill someone else is murder
C:Hiring someone to kill someone else is wrong

Because if the first statement has no truth value then what exactly did I just say here? (I'm not asking whether or not you agree with it. Just, if it's not a syllogism then what is it)

Because if the first statement has non truth value then what exactly did I just say here? — khaled

What you're saying is how you feel about murder. The way that you feel about murder has no truth value.

The other two would only be the case for an individual if they feel that way.

The other two would only be the case for an individual if they feel that way. — Terrapin Station

Ok then. How about this

P1: Creating happy people is morally neutral
P2: Creating suffering people is morally bad
P3: Giving birth risks creating either happy or suffering people
C: One should not give birth

Wouldn't C be the case for people who agree with P1, P2?

P1: Creating happy people is morally neutral — khaled

No. That has no truth value. (That's what I told you at first by the way.)

No. That has no truth value. — Terrapin Station

But wasn't that the same with
P1:Murder is wrong
P2:Hiring someone to kill someone else is murder
C:Hiring someone to kill someone else is wrong

And you said P2 and C would be the case for an individual who agrees with P1

And you said P2 and C would be the case for an individual who agrees with P1 — khaled

Someone isn't reading very well.

The other two would only be the case for an individual if they feel that way. — Terrapin Station

Which bears absolutely zero resemblance to "would be the case for an individual who agrees with P1"

Oh I thought "that way" was P1

"P2" is the case for someone who feels the way described in P2
"P3" is the case for someone who feels the way described in P3

So the 3 statements are completely disconnected?

It depends on the individual in question and how they're thinking about them.

Look, basically, you're not really a subjectivist on this stuff. Which is something I pointed out a long time ago.

Look, basically, you're not really a subjectivist on this stuff. Which is something I pointed out a long time ago. — Terrapin Station

No no no, I'd say I am. I just don't think a moral statement cannot have a truth value. On the other hand, I think "truth value" is context dependent. Something is only ever true for a certain person.

I don't think there's really any way to make sense of antinatalism from a subjectivist/emotivist standpoint.

No no no, I'd say I am. — khaled

Sure. I know that. But you're not really, because I don't think you really understand it. You wouldn't be arguing about moral utterances having truth values if you did.

I think you're misunderstanding what I've been saying all along. I never said "Antinatalism is objectively the case" or "Antinatalism is true". All I ever told people was "If you agree with P1 and P2 you'd be a hypocrite not to agree with C".

Is there a way to make sense of any ethical stance from a subjectivist/emotivist standpoint?

Which is not realizing that it's a category error.

Is there a way to make sense of any ethical stance from a subjectivist/emotivist standpoint? — khaled

You wouldn't ask this if you really thought it was subjective.

You wouldn't ask this if you really thought it was subjective. — Terrapin Station

So the answer is no? I'm just saying that not making sense from a subjectivist/emotivist standpoint isn't really a problem with antinatalism only