basically, my point is that a moral statement being an emotional statement doesn't make it less meaningful. "i love you" is an emotional statement; so is "i'm afraid" or "he's jealous of me", and those statements are all clearly meaningful
-
-
Replying to @vaguelyhumanoid @gabrielamadej
My problem with this is that I consider emotional statements to have truth-aptness. Why? Otherwise how could anyone lie about how they feel? It is my understanding that principly questions and commands fail to be truth-apt, whereas statements are propositions and are truth-apt.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @bAbAHAdAd @gabrielamadej
that's a rly good point, and imo perhaps lays the groundwork of a cognitivist emotivism?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @bAbAHAdAd @gabrielamadej
i'm just saying, if emotional statements have truth-value, that would point towards cognitivism but it doesn't in any way dispel the concept of moral statements being emotional statements. i certainly don't think "right" and "wrong" are qualities of platonic moral objects
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vaguelyhumanoid @gabrielamadej
Moral statements might have emotional content, but I don't think that qualifies them as being emotional statements in and of themselves.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
They express something more than merely how one feels, but how one objectively ought to feel/act/be, and exist in relation to and as justification for a moral order aka hierarchy, which necessitates submission as morality.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @bAbAHAdAd @gabrielamadej
that sounds more like universal command theory than the view that morals are factually right or wrong. "murder is wrong", for instance, should be looked at as a metaphor - it is not factually incorrect to murder, what is actually being communicated is "you shouldn't murder"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vaguelyhumanoid @gabrielamadej
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bAbAHAdAd @gabrielamadej
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
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.
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.
