I have been reading up on criticisms of emotivism, because I subscribe to it and i am trying to see if there is an issue I’m overlooking. I mostly see 2 issues coming up over and over again: Frege-Geach Problem, and how we communicate moral ideas and build a moral society. To me, the answer to this is a pretty simple acknowledgement of my powerlessness as one person. for frege geach problem: 1. X is wrong 2. If X is wrong, Y is wrong 3. Y is wrong

I would say 1 and 3 mean the same as “I boo X/Y”. 2. is the same as saying “If I boo X, I will boo Y”. Its not a problem that a person who doesnt believe 1 can say 2? neither are 1 and 2 giving different meanings of “X is wrong”.

Next, for the problem with making moral statements and building moral society: When I say “You should do X”, I am more saying “I feel you should do X” and inviting you to agree. the inherent assumption is of course that we both share the view “yay X!”, but i cannot be sure hence i am essentially expressing an opinion. so when i make “moral” arguments, I am in fact starting from core principles that i believe and i think you believe too, eg “yay fairness!”. so any logical argument from that is then “if I yay fairness, I should yay xyz because it is fair”

On the problem of building a society without so called moral foundations, is that not true already? different people claim different moral foundations, and its mostly about who we agree with and convincing others of our viewpoint.

Thanks for reading through everything, hoping to see some strong rebuttals!