I agree with this—one can think some claims aren’t truth apt, others false, others dependent on attitudes. The claim is that collectively these have to cover all moral claims.
I’m explicitly denying that that covers all the possibilities. You can also endorse incoherentism or indeterminacy.
Also, when you say that the claims aren’t truth-apt, are you supposing that the claims themselves have a meaning, or that the person who made the claim means to communicate something with a given moral utterance?
I agree with this—one can think some claims aren’t truth apt, others false, others dependent on attitudes. The claim is that collectively these have to cover all moral claims.
I’m explicitly denying that that covers all the possibilities. You can also endorse incoherentism or indeterminacy.
Also, when you say that the claims aren’t truth-apt, are you supposing that the claims themselves have a meaning, or that the person who made the claim means to communicate something with a given moral utterance?