(December 24, 2015 at 12:53 pm)Cato Wrote:(December 24, 2015 at 12:18 am)Delicate Wrote: Simply bleating "Hume's guillotine" is only marginally worse than simply bleating "is-ought".
I know precision of thought is not very popular here, but what, and how exactly, are you invoking the is-ought problem?
More evidence of what I described in my previous post. If anything, you are tenaciously consistent.
The fact that you are still hammering away at this, in light of the fact that someone else has already engaged you on the ought (your idealistic notion of moral perfection) juxtaposed to the is (morality as it is observed, discussed and practiced), is bizarre.
With this, I suppose I have earned another fine display of your petulant ignorance.
You misunderstand the conversation, as you are wont to do. The discussion there didn't try to bridge the is- ought gap. Rather both Dawkins and Christianity, in the context of that discussion, assumed there is no is-ought problem. Both assumed we have oughts.
The discussion was over whether Dawkins' knockoff morality made it worthwhile to try to do good. I argued it didn't.
So suffice to say, the is ought problem doesn't save Dawkins.
Like I said, bleating slogans is no substitute for understanding the discussion.
Now sit down.
