Yeah, I see what you mean there - that as a metaethical or descriptive theory noncognitivism can be in error..wrong or incomplete, even if noncognitivst utterances can't be, strictly speaking. Though...it has to be said..that metaethical noncognitivism doesn't depend on the utterances being intended as such....so even if that claim were in error it would not establish that metaethical noncognitivism were. In fact, I think you'd find that it tickles advocates of that theory pink that we very much intend to launder our yucks and yums as moral fiber other-than.
You're certainly on to something about realism. The article you're reading goes on to explain that since there are so many different ideas of realism anti-realism is equally muddy and so..at least in some contexts or frameworks, you could call subjectivism or relativism subjective realism or relativistic realism as opposed to objective realism. All three claim that their is a "real" index for moral claims - but, ofc...the noncognitivists disgust is just as "real" as the individual who has it or the society they live in or the universe that society inhabits while making antithetical claims to any version of realism in the same contexts and frameworks. For my part, I use it to refer to objective realism in those contexts or frameworks. Of the three, only objective realism would require anything mind independent. The "real" things in the other two are very explicitly peoples minds. Metaethically speaking.
I'm not sold on free will myself, though that doesn't lead me to an amoral view.
You're certainly on to something about realism. The article you're reading goes on to explain that since there are so many different ideas of realism anti-realism is equally muddy and so..at least in some contexts or frameworks, you could call subjectivism or relativism subjective realism or relativistic realism as opposed to objective realism. All three claim that their is a "real" index for moral claims - but, ofc...the noncognitivists disgust is just as "real" as the individual who has it or the society they live in or the universe that society inhabits while making antithetical claims to any version of realism in the same contexts and frameworks. For my part, I use it to refer to objective realism in those contexts or frameworks. Of the three, only objective realism would require anything mind independent. The "real" things in the other two are very explicitly peoples minds. Metaethically speaking.
I'm not sold on free will myself, though that doesn't lead me to an amoral view.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
