statements of emotion/desire/command are only "mere babbles" and "barking into the void" if you only value logic and objectivity. in any case, i lean more towards meta-ethical prescriptivism, tho i can sympathize with emotivism as well
To say murder is wrong is the same as saying murder is evil or murder is immoral. The "wrongness" is in the moral sense. The implication is always that one ought be moral and ought not to be immoral. This is not to be an equivocation between facts and morality.
-
-
The objectivity is implied in the imperative. If morality does not posit objective value, then what good reason is there to be moral over simply following out ones own whims? Without the idea of objective value, morality end up as an empty construct.
-
imo, morality is intersubjective - the goal of ethics is to work towards consensus between the conflicting emotions, values and desires of each conscious subject
-
I'd venture to say that normatively morality is intersubjective, but at a ground level it is based in falsehood. Furthermore, unlike bare intersubjectivity, morality necessitates a hierarchical power structure. It's the difference between a State and a Union of Egoists.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
but why is "wrongness" (i.e. factual incorrectness) the language to describe morality. a statement like "there is a king of france" can be right or wrong - factually true or factually untrue. a moral statement does not fall in the same category. "wrong" is a cultural metaphor
-
Uhh... there are lots of words that have different meanings depending on context. For example: A feather is light. What is light cannot be dark. Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
