abb3w wrote:Harris makes a fairly basic mistake; he doesn't pay enough attention to Hume's is-ought divide.
Oi! That's what I said! Bloody Hume stealing me ideas 'bout Harris' speech. Who this Hume bloke anyway?
abb3w wrote:The differences resulting, however, do not make the resulting inferences about morality non-objective any more than the differences between Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry make all geometry non-objective. It's merely important to be clear at the linguistic/semantic level.
I sure love how that post does not display a fetish for the word "construct". Instead it displays a fetish for math, which I can totally get behind. In any case, as a third side in the debate, it would be more welcome in a certain thread in the Internet and Webcomics forum: Shades of Grey and Morality.
Sylvan wrote:"he writes as though he is afraid someone reading will actually understand him".
Awesome. But strangely familiar. Didn't Dawkins originate this quote in one of his pop-sci books?
Sylvan wrote:My apologies if this post is simply a lack of imagination/cognition on my part, I just honestly don't get what you are trying to say and don't see any illogical leap from "this is how it is" to "this is how it ought to be" present in the video linked.
Once you know what you want, you can have a measure of how good a plan is to get you there. So what do you want? Why?
Specifically, once we decide we want to minimize suffering/maximize wellbeing (jumping over nitpicks like how to quantify them), we can decide which paths are better towards that goal or not. Why should we want to minimize suffering/maximize wellbeing, however?
teratorn wrote:Poor Ossomer, here he is facing death and yet people prefer to discuss Caesar's fate, Caesar that isn't even mentioned in the update. Really a minor character.
Yeah boop Ossomer. The only guy who even cared to mention him was Infidel, and that was to wish a grisly death upon Prince Meatslab.