You’re missing the point. The empathic metaethicist is trying to figure out what she means by ‘right’. Assuming she’s a well-adjusted human being, that’s probably the same as what you mean by ‘right’, so with any luck we’ll work out what you mean by ‘right’ as well (and hence, what “is right”). But we’re not asking Alex what she thinks peterdjones.getMeaning("right").getExtension() is.
That isn’t a good theoretical argument that “right” has only a subjective definition, and it isn’t practically as good as being able make individual notions of moral rightness more correct, where they need fixing.
Whatever you mean by “only a subjective definition”, I’m probably not trying to argue that.
Do you think you mean something other than what is right when you say “right”? If not, then replace “Alex” with “Peterdjones”. Do you still think the empathic metaethicist is going to get the wrong answer when they try to figure out what you mean by “right”?
You’re missing the point. The empathic metaethicist is trying to figure out what she means by ‘right’. Assuming she’s a well-adjusted human being, that’s probably the same as what you mean by ‘right’, so with any luck we’ll work out what you mean by ‘right’ as well (and hence, what “is right”). But we’re not asking Alex what she thinks
peterdjones.getMeaning("right").getExtension()is.That isn’t a good theoretical argument that “right” has only a subjective definition, and it isn’t practically as good as being able make individual notions of moral rightness more correct, where they need fixing.
Whatever you mean by “only a subjective definition”, I’m probably not trying to argue that.
Do you think you mean something other than what is right when you say “right”? If not, then replace “Alex” with “Peterdjones”. Do you still think the empathic metaethicist is going to get the wrong answer when they try to figure out what you mean by “right”?