So, no, it isn't that nothing morally good exists; but, rather, that nothing 100% morally good exists. Perhaps we can find common ground there (; — Bob Ross
One of the key disagreements here relates to the idea that there is a universal human end (happiness). If all humans desire happiness, and if Harris' doomsday scenario is the epitome of unhappiness, then it logically follows that we should try to avoid this doomsday scenario. — Leontiskos
sophistry of Anglo-American moral philosophy that is now roosting at Oxford. — Leontiskos
he basically got O'Connor to admit that one could deny that 2+2=4 on the same Emotivist basis on which he denies Harris' claim — Leontiskos
He's not making a moral argument at all, at the end of the day. — AmadeusD
He did not. — AmadeusD
The claim is, "That's not a moral claim, and I am unable to define what I mean by a moral claim." This is not a serious objection. — Leontiskos
What Harris has demonstrated is a "should" that is necessary and universal. If that's not a moral claim then I don't know what is. — Leontiskos
You probably missed it. Watch the section I pointed out above. — Leontiskos
Personally, Emotivism is the only reasonable position and O'Connor has rightly landed on it. — AmadeusD
Why not Perspectivism? — Joshs
If our emotions are expressions of individual development in terms of knowledge construction, and the latter is inextricably tied to reciprocal interaction within a larger social community, then there can be a kind of universal evolution of moral understanding. — Joshs
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.