There is a fair amount to unpick here. For example, we might wonder whether this is the best way of drawing the distinction between the thin and the thick. We might also worry, as part of this, whether there is a sharp distinction in the first place. Furthermore, even if we agree that there is a sharp distinction, not only might we think that the thickness of thick concepts comes in degrees; we might also think, controversially, that thin concepts come in degrees of “thickness” also. I leave these interesting and delicate matters aside. What I will say is this. Below I develop the discussion as traditionally implied (as I take it to be) and think of the shapelessness phenomenon as applying equally and strongly to thin and thick evaluative concepts. (So, to make clear, I reckon that an example like the chocolate case, or that example itself, could be run with the same outcome for the concept of goodness.) But we need to adjust the traditional set-up and say that in the case of thick concepts, if shapelessness is proved, then we cannot disentangle any supposed evaluative and descriptive content. In the case of thin concepts, we can say that there is no disentangling argument to then be given, although we can talk of the shapelessness hypothesis leading to an argument (perhaps the shapelessness argument) and a conclusion that are similar to that reached in the case of thick concepts, namely, that thin concepts should be thought of along cognitivist lines. Going down this route adds an extra argumentative aspect. It might be that thick concepts are shapeless only because they have an element — a separable element — that is agreed on all sides to be shapeless, namely, thin evaluative content. That is, even if the shapelessness of thick concepts is shown, it is still an open question as to whether they can be disentangled. I will comment on this in §5. What should be emphasized, however, is that my prime interest in this paper is whether the shapelessness hypothesis is correct in the first place. We need to keep an eye on how it relates to the disentangling argument, but that should not dominate.
