I guess I just don’t think it’s interesting or in any way special that there are questions that are usually asked by including non-verbal information, or that there are words that refer to “the recipient of this message”.
Wrt “ambiguity” all I mean is that you don’t know what the speaker intended the word to refer to until you know who they were talking to. Steve said “Is that play interesting?” to Alice, implying he wants to know whether Alice found the play interesting. Responding with Bob’s opinion of the play would be unhelpful, which is why you need the context. Maybe “ambiguous” isn’t the best word for that. Whatever.
I guess I just don’t think it’s interesting or in any way special that there are questions that are usually asked by including non-verbal information, or that there are words that refer to “the recipient of this message”.
That would be OK if a) there were a clear distinction between the two categories and/or b) nothing much rode on the distinction.
But neither is the case wrt morallity. a) We don’t have a “usual” practices with regard to moral language. Committed objectivists speak one way, subjectivists another, and many others are undecided b) it is hard to coneive of anything more important than morality—and the two ways of speaking mean something different. Alice can’t wish Bob to be punished just for doing something that’s wrong-for-Alice.
I guess I just don’t think it’s interesting or in any way special that there are questions that are usually asked by including non-verbal information, or that there are words that refer to “the recipient of this message”.
Wrt “ambiguity” all I mean is that you don’t know what the speaker intended the word to refer to until you know who they were talking to. Steve said “Is that play interesting?” to Alice, implying he wants to know whether Alice found the play interesting. Responding with Bob’s opinion of the play would be unhelpful, which is why you need the context. Maybe “ambiguous” isn’t the best word for that. Whatever.
That would be OK if a) there were a clear distinction between the two categories and/or b) nothing much rode on the distinction.
But neither is the case wrt morallity. a) We don’t have a “usual” practices with regard to moral language. Committed objectivists speak one way, subjectivists another, and many others are undecided b) it is hard to coneive of anything more important than morality—and the two ways of speaking mean something different. Alice can’t wish Bob to be punished just for doing something that’s wrong-for-Alice.