On another thread a poster asked me about logic and values and whether or not it was an elementary point in logic that no truth claim can entail a value judgement.
Your statement was:
And on second reading I think I misunderstood. If what you meant is:
"No subjective moral claim can be true or false"
then I agree. But can you clarify what is meant by 'contain'? Is the following an example:
"Fred believes theft to be wrong." ?
But then that is truth apt as it isn't a subjective moral claim it is a factual claim. If however what you meant was statements such as:
"Theft is wrong"
then IF morality is subjective only then this is a subjective moral claim and so is not truth apt.
However If morality is objective then such statements are not necessarily subjective moral claims. Then they can become akin to factual claims such as whether a person holds opinion X or London is a city in Britain or this shape has three sides - ie statements that can take truth values.
So basically I am a bit confused by what you meant, sorry.
"I consider theft to be wrong" is truth-apt as it is a factual claim.
Whether "Theft is wrong" is truth apt depends on the nature of morality and what kind of morality is being referred to.
If it is objective and if this is a statement that theft is objectively wrong, then it is truth apt.
But if it is a subjective moral claim then it is not regardless of whether there is an objective morality.
I do not think the nature of morality is part of elementary logic, but it probably is that subjective moral claims are not truth apt.
I apologise for any insufficient clarity upon my part.
Let me attempt to explain more simply.
A logical statement is invalid if it violates the law of identity (A = A), the law of non-contradiction (A does NOT = non-A) and the law of excluded middle (it is NOT both A and non-A).
A logically valid statement is, for instance, a triangle is a three-sided figure.
An empirically valid statement is 'water boils at 100 degrees Celsius or 212 Fahrenheit.'
There is NO logical necessity for water to boil at that particular temperature and it is simply what is known as a 'contingent truth'
By contrast a triangle could NOT be a triangle if it had two or four sides so that is a LOGICAL truth.
Moral statements can never be demonstrable through the use of logical.
One can attempt to present rational arguments in favour of any particular moral position but it remains the case that they are inherently incapable of logical proof or disproof.
The statement you made was concerning Fred's belief that theft was wrong.
Well, what does Fred MEAN by theft?
The grandfather of a friend of mine once stole a loaf of bread from a doorstep when he was 8 years old because his father had deserted the family and they were starving.
Is he a thief?
Or are the bankers who habitually extort money from both public and private citizens thieves?
Is taxation theft?
Is inflation theft?
Leaving aside the difficulty in even defining what we mean by theft, it is clear that NO individual's belief is a sufficient criterion on which to regard them as having any foundation in fact,
Fred may believe that theft is wrong but that remains his opinion.
How do we judge the rightness or wrongness of an action?
I subscribe to a position known as 'Situation Ethics.'
In my opinion murder can be justifiable homicide (the various attempts upon Hitler's life are one obvious example and the killing of a murder by an MVS is another case where I find it quite impossible to feel any kind of blame or condemnation within me for their actions).
Similarly, I agree with Jim about the right of self-defence even up to and including the use of deadly force if necessary.
I also believe that there are many occasions on which what one might call revenge punishments are acceptable. On one occasion in my life I deal with three individuals who had assaulted me and I tracked them down and individually beat all three of them severely as IMO a just punishment for their behaviour.
I also know that my wife acted in a similar fashion when two friends of hers were unjustly sent to prison as a result of false testimony by a couple of BNP members (a man and a woman). Lin sought them out and both of them spent the next couple of months in hospital as a result.
I regard her actions as being as entirely justified as my own.
Ultimately I believe that Schopenhauer was right when he said that kindness is the fundamental basis of morality and cruelty that which above all else is to be abhorred.
If what I have just said leads to the opposite impression then I can only say that I have never confused kindness with weakness any more than I have confused strength with cruelty.