Philosophy Now Forum

The Moral-Facts-Deniers made the following claims regarding Moral Sentences, Moral Statements and Moral Judgments;

The Moral-Facts-Deniers claim Moral Sentences/Judgments;

• 1.. Are not facts
  1i. Are not state-of-affairs
  1ii Cannot be Propositions
  2.. Cannot be True nor False
  3.. Not truth apt
  4.. Express only Emotions
  4i. Are opinions and individuals' beliefs
  5.. Not objectively true
  6.. Prescriptive not descriptive
  7.. Non-Declarative Speech Acts
  8.. Meaningless
  9.. Moral knowledge is impossible
  10. Express desires, dis/approval
  11. Do not predicate properties of subjects
  12. Not reducible to non-moral properties

The above are typical of what is labelled within Non-Cognitivism Claims whose believers are termed non-cognitivists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-cognitivism

But the Non-Cognitivists' [Moral-Facts-Deniers] claims in counter to the Cogntivists' Claims are false and untenable as demonstrated by the Frege-Geach Problem;

Frege-Geach Problem Destroyed NonCognitivism
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30150

Until the Moral-Facts-Deniers are able to overcome the Frege-Geach Problem, the Moral-Facts-Deniers do not have any grounds to counter the cognitivists' claims as below.

Moral Cognitivists claim Moral Statements/Judgments are

• 1.. Propositions
  1i. Specific Moral facts
  2.. Can be True or False – Truth Apt
  3.. Objective – independent
  4.. Reducible to non-moral properties

Moral Cognitivists has provided tons of arguments and evidence to support their claims.

Meanwhile the Moral-Facts-Deniers being defanged by the Frege-Geach Problem should just shut up with their ignorant-based arrogance inherited by the bastardized philosophy of the logical positivists. As Richard Boyd had asserted the Moral-Facts-Deniers are suffering from some kind of Moral Cognitive Deficit.

Views??

Note this survey;

• A survey from 2009 involving 3,226 respondents[6] found that 56% of philosophers accept or lean towards moral realism (28%: anti-realism; 16%: other).
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism#:

The Cognitivists [moral facts are proposition, truth-apt] belong to the the moral realist camps which is the majority.

The Moral-Facts-Deniers like Peter Holmes, Sculptor, PantFlasher and others belong to the moral anti-realism camp which is 28% as indicated above but the hardcore ones like the foul-mouthed PantFlasher et. al. are rarer still.
It is very embarrassing of the Moral-Facts-Deniers to be so arrogant around here when their counters are false and toothless as destroyed by the Frege-Geach Problem.

Here is relevant point posted here
viewtopic.php?p=470530#p470530
on why the Moral-Facts-Deniers are so ignorant;

Why my thread created so much controversy especially with moral-facts-deniers is very historical, psychological, due to emotional and confirmation bias based on some paradigm of bastardized philosophy traceable mainly to the logical positivists who abused Hume's is-ought distinction.

Hume wrote:In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not.
Book III, part I, section I of his book, A Treatise of Human Nature (1739)
-Wiki

Note the mentioned of 'God' in the above quote.
In those days, the idea of God imposing moral commands on believers and on non-believers by the Church which was very powerful was strongly HATED and abhorred by non-theists of which Hume was one of them.

The Logical Positivists then adopted Hume's point [together with Moore's Naturaistic Fallacy] and amplified the HATRED to theists and all those who do not agree with their bastardized ideology of analyticity and non-verifiable claims especially from a God and other non-theistic perspectives.

Those who tried to push their non-verifiable moral claims and other metaphysical claims were pummeled by the logical positivists who had held to their arrogance based on ignorance until Quine came into the picture.

But this arrogance based on ignorance is still maintained by some [a minority <28%*] at present, i.e. the Moral Facts Deniers [moral anti-realists] to pummel those who they ignorantly think are peddling the moral claims of the old, i.e. from God, Platonic Forms and others.

• A survey from 2009 involving 3,226 respondents[6] found that 56% of philosophers accept or lean towards moral realism (28%: anti-realism; 16%: other).
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism#

But note my paradigm as explained above is totally different from those of God and Platonic Forms but the Moral Facts Deniers do not believe so and insist what I presented is merely in a disguised form of equivocating fact [descriptive] with values [prescriptive] directly.

But the ignorant driven arrogant moral facts deniers do not understand Morality [as defined] is in reality in accord with the paradigm I have presented.