Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Under emotivism, the premises of moral arguments are not ... — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Emotivism precludes the possibility of moral arguments that are valid in a non-trivial sense.

    Under emotivism, the premises of moral arguments are not truth-apt — they are semantically incapable of truth or falsity.

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Moral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    An argument is formally valid if and only if the premises cannot be true and the...Emotivism precludes the possibility of moral arguments that are valid in a non-t...If premises cannot be true, then any argument with those premises is trivially v...Trivial validity (arising from truth-inapt premises) is not validity in any mean...

    Similar

    Russell's emotivism can account for moral contradictions without treat...87%The truth-aptness argument does not establish that moral facts exist83%Russell's emotivist position is better equipped than cruder forms of e...82%Cruder forms of emotivism portray moral judgments as mere expressions ...82%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: russell-moral
    View source passageHide passage
    It is a common complaint against emotivism that it precludes the possibility of moral arguments that are valid in a non-trivial sense. An argument is formally valid if and only if, no matter how the non-logical vocabulary is interpreted, the premises cannot be true and the conclusion false. But if the premises of a moral argument are not truth-apt—if they are semantically incapable of truth or falsity—then all moral arguments, no matter how obviously “illogical” they may appear, will be triviall

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective