>I just haven't encountered any reasons I consider decisive to say that
>moral statements aren't true or false.
Valid or invalid are probably better terms to use than truth or false...it would be more appropriate to say that a moral principle holds as valid (under specific conditions) than simply to say that it is 'true.' We don't need any kind of ultimate justification here, only those effected by (through action or lack of action) the principle need reach an agreement... There is substantial difference in the way we treat norms contra 'facts.'
That the earth is round is 'true' regardless of whether or not people believe it, as long as the science holds up (I guess) - 'consensus' isn't really a criterion of 'truth' in the objectivating sense. However, consensus is relevant for validity... (and we only need to spell out the [objective] conditions under which a norm could be validated in order to articulate a critique of existing affairs).
sorry, I'll be quiet for a while now, ken