TBB, what you are saying describes almost all human experience, not just the experience of ethics. Beauty, love, even the color and solidity of the desk in front of me, are not to be found anywhere but in the evaluations of a subjective agent.
We often leave implied statements unsaid, and they are then discarded implicitly in semantic discussion, which is why almost anything seems silly under a microscope. But when we say (act is value), that value must be related to something, and in the case of human being, that something is likely a mix of an awareness of instinct, of current hedonic state, of world view, etc.
The reason (act is value) is unfalsifiable isn't because of either the act or the value, it's because you are divorcing the statement from a goal. If my goal is to have peace and quiet, then sticking a duck in a blender feet-first is clearly bad. So I'd argue that the linguistic habit isn't so much one of creating meanings where none is falsifiable, but in ommitting a point of origin in the interest of brevity, only to have that point left behind and forgotten, and the value statement thereby rendered meaningless.
We often leave implied statements unsaid, and they are then discarded implicitly in semantic discussion, which is why almost anything seems silly under a microscope. But when we say (act is value), that value must be related to something, and in the case of human being, that something is likely a mix of an awareness of instinct, of current hedonic state, of world view, etc.
The reason (act is value) is unfalsifiable isn't because of either the act or the value, it's because you are divorcing the statement from a goal. If my goal is to have peace and quiet, then sticking a duck in a blender feet-first is clearly bad. So I'd argue that the linguistic habit isn't so much one of creating meanings where none is falsifiable, but in ommitting a point of origin in the interest of brevity, only to have that point left behind and forgotten, and the value statement thereby rendered meaningless.
