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.
-
-
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 -
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @bAbAHAdAd @gabrielamadej
imo, morality is intersubjective - the goal of ethics is to work towards consensus between the conflicting emotions, values and desires of each conscious subject
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
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.
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.
