The first thing I found interesting was how the fact that truth conditional semantics can make valid arguments which directly contradicts non-cognitivism where they state that moral language is only opinions, commands etc.
Second, because we know that moral language can establish truth claims based off of valid arguments, it doesn't follow that moral language is full of simply opinions. Furthermore, the non-cognitivist view that moral language is just opinions can't form valid arguments at all; "what you freely assert, I freely dismiss."
I find it absolutely fascinating that an entire theory of philosophy can be obliterated by one argument. It really stakes the claim that truth can be found through rationality (assuming this is all true that is which it does seem likely).
So what do you guys think?
Just a lay person, but...
I think it's odd that the theory was "destroyed" by an argument using formal logic. It presupposes that a) humans are logical b) they act in a logical fashion c) if stealing is bad then murder is bad is not an opinion, and d) opinions can't be logically consistent (wtf?)
A 'logical' argument can be made for being homophobic: non-procreation is bad; hence, homosexuality is bad. Yet, a) not everyone who is homophobic uses arguments, because a bunch also just want to follow scripture, b) this can still be an opinion [1] and logically consistent. What happens in the real world, though, is that non-procreating/infertile couples do not face discrimination in the same way [2], and a homosexual might procreate and then raise the baby with a partner, and still face discrimination.
This does not explain cultural differences, and exceptions, and other arbitrary moral attributes (i.e. not 'logical' ones). If I can find a cross-cultural counter-example for something one culture deems moral, and both are equally logical in their claim, what does that say about logic? That is, to go meta-meta: why is something being logical good? Examples: if murder is bad, how are capital punishment and war good? How is a crime of passion excusable? Most importantly, how is being pious a marker for morality? If my culture thinks maximizing self-interest leads to maximum aggregate happiness, and another culture believes it comes from maximizing group interest, both are logically consistent arguments in and of themselves.
There is a (now famous) classroom experiment where the teacher said that blue/brown eyes were superior [3], resulting in kids treating each other in a generally shitty way. What I mean is: a) morality is tied to power, and that b) it is perfectly capable of producing a logical system that can be immoral. Take racism as an example, take the moral judgements of colonists as an example.
Notes: [1] Why is non-procreation bad? And have attitudes about the morality of an act changed? Does that mean a change of logic or of opinion?
[2]As an aside -- procreating has a high value placed on it in the Old Testament, for example, and G-d often promises prophets 'a nation', because there is no concept of heaven. Hence, this system is consistent in placing a value upon procreation.
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elliott#The_first_exercise_using_brown_collars See also: Stanford Prison Experiment
TL;DR:
posted 3201 days ago