25:25 How can moral claims be false if the there are no moral facts? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that moral claims are not truth apt? I thought fictionalism was the view that all moral statements are false which is a form of truth-apt cognitivism whereas the idea that moral discourse is really just the expression of desire is a form of noncognitivism. I'm honestly trying to find out where the difference is.
Here I was speaking about Richard Joyce's moral error theory. Error theorists hold that our positive moral sentences genuinely attempt, and always fail, to describe the way things are morally--they always fail precisely because moral facts do not exist. Expressivists (non-cognitivists) on the other hand think that our moral sentences do not even *attempt* to describe the way things are. I have a video that addresses the differences here: ruclips.net/video/glGP-NlF1Jg/видео.html
![Method Writing: The First Four Concepts - Jack Grapes [FULL INTERVIEW]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ba9jAVzADY0/mqdefault.jpg)
25:25 How can moral claims be false if the there are no moral facts? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that moral claims are not truth apt? I thought fictionalism was the view that all moral statements are false which is a form of truth-apt cognitivism whereas the idea that moral discourse is really just the expression of desire is a form of noncognitivism. I'm honestly trying to find out where the difference is.
Here I was speaking about Richard Joyce's moral error theory. Error theorists hold that our positive moral sentences genuinely attempt, and always fail, to describe the way things are morally--they always fail precisely because moral facts do not exist. Expressivists (non-cognitivists) on the other hand think that our moral sentences do not even *attempt* to describe the way things are.
I have a video that addresses the differences here:
ruclips.net/video/glGP-NlF1Jg/видео.html
@@PhilosophywithProfessorParsons Thank you so much for the response!