Reply #45: What reason is there to believe that post 29 answers post 18?

[Boojatta]

From post 18: (slightly edited)

The description of category two is: thought/concept/idea. Might a single word be enough to express a given concept? For example, is money a concept? Is density (mass over volume) a concept?

Might several statements be required to express a given idea? For example, if someone has an idea for how to achieve some goal or an idea for a movie then is it possible that several statements might be required to describe the idea?

Would it be possible to describe category two so that it would be clear that what is in category two is a single statement rather than a part of a statement or a collection of many statements?

From post 29:

Simply put, in answer to ALL your questions, which in the previous thread and this thread seem to be just finding more examples to say "but what about this case? And what about this case? And this one? And this one?"

All of your cases fall into one of my three categories. (...)

Category #2: Ideas. Ideas/concepts. In the head, but they either accurately reflect reality (facts), or they don't.

What reason is there to believe that no moral statement falls into category two?

Introduction to some questions:

Suppose some organization runs periodic competitions involving some particular sport or game. Suppose coaches do not work for the organization that runs the competition. During a given competition, a coach works for a single competitor. The coach will work for other competitors in future. The coach's agreement with the customer/competitor is that a win by the customer/competitor will increase the coach's earnings. Also, a win will be documented and the coach's status as coach of a winner will be documented, so a win will help the coach get customers in future.

Suppose a coach notices the coach's customer deliberately violating some rule of the competition. During the next intermission, the coach has a private discussion with the customer/competitor and tells the customer/competitor that the coach noticed the violation. The coach tells the customer/competitor that it is unethical for the customer/competitor to do that.

Question: which of the following are possible ways for the coach to continue the discussion?

(1) Tell the customer that it is nevertheless likely to help the customer win. Advise the customer to continue to violate the rules.
(2) Teach the customer some slightly different way of violating the rules, a way that is less likely to be detected than what the customer was doing.
(3) Tell the customer that the coach is terminating the coaching agreement with the customer.
(4) Tell the customer that the coach will report to the organization the next violation that the coach notices.

If to assert that the customer/competitor did something unethical is to express an emotion, then what is the emotion that is expressed?

Now, suppose the coach notices the coach's customer using a strategy or tactic that is completely within the rules, but that the coach thinks will prevent the customer/competitor from winning.

If all coaches express disapproval when they observe what seems to them to be an ineffective strategy or tactic of a customer, then can we conclude that "ineffective tactic or strategy" is not an idea or concept (category #2), but is actually an emotion (category #3)?