(June 12, 2019 at 11:28 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Ironically, we don't disagree on the things that make moral nihilism in some sense unintelligible. I'm only adding another to the list. The embeddeding problem.
You'll probably get a huge kick out of this, courtesy of S. Blackburn(1984)
(a) H!(B!p --> B!q)
H! is the hooray operator. B! for boo. The relationship between p and q demonstrates attitudes or beliefs.
Noncognitivist nihilism posits that moral operators aren't actually talking about what they're about, as opposed to cognitivist nihilism which asserts that they are - but get it wrong. Above we can see that expressivism as a noncognitivist theory could, at least in principle, be a logical product - and thus we're back to wondering whether there is any valid distinction between logical and moral normatives.....even in a noncognitivist framework.
I did get a kick out of it. I had to refer to truth tables (my symbolic logic is a lil' rusty) and I still had a rather difficult time working through it. I actually didn't quite work through it. It's pretty complicated. But fascinating nonetheless.