I don't understand the question — Bartricks
What is Reason? — frank
It seems to me that you are getting hung up on the 'full stop' - that 'full stop' just expresses their categorical nature. That is, when something is morally valuable it is not 'valuable to me', but just 'valuable full stop' - that is, valuable regardless of whether I happen to value it. — Bartricks
1. If my values are moral values, then . . . . — Bartricks
Either the collective agreement of moral thinkers is worthy of taking as sound (in which case you could reasonably refer me to them as evidence), or it is not (in which case you cannot and will have to argue your premise from prior axioms). If the former, then you'll need to explain why it is that these thinkers whose conclusions you have just declared trustworthy, largely do not agree with your conclusions. If the latter, then your argument fails as one of its premises has no justification. — Isaac
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.