Subjective Morality?

[The Grand Nudger]

Thanks for all your hard work.  

I'm beginning to understand your terminology... which is why I can reject it.

Hey, good, great.  That's legitimately the best possible result....though I'm unconcerned with your rejection of this standard terminology, lol. 

Not a ruse... it's an illusion.  A user-illusion.

And the main illusion is "I".

Well, okay, but does the illusion of I believe that it believes things?  This illusion of I certainly does..and while my beliefs may not actually get at truth (propositional accuracy is not a requirement of cognitivism) that is what I'm trying to express.  I'm not just grunting, at least not all of the time, lol..ergo non cognitivism is false.  I do have beliefs, like any of my other beliefs, about morality.  My moral propositions express those states of belief, just as any other proposition expresses those states of belief.  

They are knowledge of a same kind, and a product of cognition rather than a base response.   

...
We both think that a moral proposition can express a state of belief. 
...

I don't.  I reject the terminology.

You can reject the terminology all you like.  You've agreed to it's content.  I can go back to using the word cat, if you like?  You prefer to say that ethics is cognitive, but again..ethics and morality are interchangeable for purposes of our discussion.  We're talking about the same thing..and we still would be, even if I called it a cat.  

...
We think that morality is about something, that we hold to be true. 
...

Yes. 

Ta-da, done, you (re)affirm cognitivism and (again)reject non cognitivism.  It's really that simple.  

...
So...for us "-show me how/give me a single example of- it's not just feelings" is a closed door of objection, because we have a commitment to cognitivism, now.  
...

Too many negatives for me to be able to parse that statement.

Cognition is required for ethics.  

Cognition is not required for a moral.

Or at least, that would be the case using Wikipedia's description of Cognition which seems to imply consciousness.

Cognition is "the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses".[1] It encompasses processes such as attention, the formation of knowledge, memory and working memory, judgment and evaluation, reasoning and "computation", problem solving and decision making, comprehension and production of language. Cognitive processes use existing knowledge and generate new knowledge.

-as if on cue, you responded to the post that comment is in with precisely the sort of objection unavailable to us and described by it.  After affirming the position of cognitivism (regardless of how much you don't like the words) many times...you then proceeded to object to cognitivism......by affirming a necessarrily non-cognitivist ojection.  Remember when you asked me about the name of a particular tribe.....?

You're trying to get ahead of some foot you think will fall- cuz those meta ethicists are a silly bunch and they're wrong about something, you just know it.  There is no foot.  

...
(and we can also state that at least some meta ethicists were right about something, as we see it )

Even the bible and quran are not completely wrong.

Just, mostly.

I know right..and that's the focus of the next question with profound implications for moral ontology! Are our beliefs...that we do possess..sometimes true?