On Balance, Non-Cognitivism is the Proper Moral Model

" It's not a straw man. Moral propositions like "shooting someone in the head is wrong" are emotive statements. " No, they are not. There is no emotional component in my saying that. You are not the authority one what emotions if any I express when I make a statement, I am. Incidentally, "someone" is more general than the statement I made. " ... which perfectly makes my point above... " No it DOES NOT, because you clipped off the end of the sentence. " So in your opinion, you don't believe that pedophilia is morally wrong... you have an emotive response of ickyness that you attribute to pedophilia. My opponent also indicates that there is a difference between ickyness and wrongness... I hope he deigns to provide us a definition of some kind" I already did it. Try to edit this stuff out when you read on and realize your claim is answered right below what you're answering, that's twice in a very short space. " Endangering one's life to save another is therefore morally wrong." Yep (unless of course that other is highly valuable to one's life, in a manner that justifies the risk). "Smoking is therefore morally wrong." Yup, the science seems to say that. "Drinking is therefore morally wrong." The science tells us THAT is heavily dependent on dosage however. " I think this definition is inadequate. " Oh? Do you have, hehehe, a statement that proves it "false?" " Driving your car, flying, walking down stairs, skydiving.... anything that statistically has a nonzero chance of killing you is therefore morally wrong." How utterly simplistic. Someone who never engages in any of these things will not live very long on average to someone who does. Paralysis is not a survival strategy. One has to balance the benefits for the goal with the losses. " Killing everyone with any infectious disease is therefore good." Again, simplistic. Engaging in such a campaign means you have embarked solo to start a war with millions of people. OBVIOUSLY this is not a situation you are likely to survive now is it? " Preventing as many other drivers from being on the road is therefore good..." How? Again, probably by starting such a war. Bad idea. " I'll take this as you defending pure subjectivism. " No. "Whatever I say goes" as a view of morality is not compatible with "I seek the goal, but nature dictates how that goal may be achieved." The morality (the code of action for achieving a given end) exists in the interaction between the agent and that external-- e.g., it is neither subjective, nor intrinsic, but objective. "It is impossible to act both morally and altruistically. " This is a problem? How so? "Many actions that are necessary and/or lack moral import are deemed immoral by this standard (For example, if the set of desired ends includes "stay alive" it is immoral to drive a car because you could be killed). " Obviously not if the driving is on net beneficial, which in fact it generally is. In any case, surely you realize the distinction between having a life and living one's life ? :) (it's expressed often by the statement "live a little"), the latter being the terminology I used? "Some actions carry the peculiar status of being moral and immoral (For example, if the set of desired ends includes "stay alive" and "go to work" it would be immoral to do anything that reduces either of these... making it immoral to drive to work because it reduces your chances of staying alive, but moral to drive to work because it increases your chances of getting there)" He who does not work generally will not eat. Obviously, then, this is a fake conflict. The odds of death are higher if you fail to drive to work than if you rive to work. "then it makes no sense for an actor to ask himself if what he wants is good" This is not a problem. "Good" only has meaning in the context of a preexisting goal. It's like saying it's a problem with cars that they don't replace you as the driver. " 5) It removes an actor's ability to make generalized propositions about events that carry (or might carry) moral import. For example, if Bob states "shooting people is wrong" and Jeff states "shooting people is right" - they both cannot logically be correct unless you add the caveat "in my opinion" to each statement." Opinion has nothing to do with it, because again what I am endorsing is not subjectivism. Goals are what is relevant. The goals prior to morality may be subjective, but the morality itself is not. If they disagree on goals, it makes no sense for them to discuss morality at all of course-- they are both right, because their statements are made in irreconcilable contexts. Of course, again, anyone who disagrees with the goal of living is not going to be here to dicuss the matter. In any case, truth is to be judged for it's truth-- not for abilities you wish it gave you. "Thus, if two subjectivists disagree about the same situation, one can make the case that subjectivism does not successfully refer to a real event - only to the actors' opinions ABOUT the event..." If one person looks at a car from above, and another looks at a car from below, are they not right at differing descriptions of it's visual appearance? The appearance isn't even an opinion-- just a statement made from a different preexisting context.