(June 16, 2011 at 7:53 pm)Boccaccio Wrote: You seem to be looking mostly at the debate tactics themselves. Is that right? I can't really agree that their approach conceded the debate and anyway, the theist team obviously did not think it did. It looks like that will be a matter of opinion. I thought that Leigh was pretty clear about innate morality, meaning what has evolved. Decisions we make on that base are subjective, which has been covered here. That clarifies things.
It's demonstrative that neither side won let alone lost; if anyone won it was the floor comments with the the exclusion of the first one.
However, let's proceed with the question. This is correct; if there is such a thing as ethics which are objective in any meaningful sense, they have defied philosophers' defining to almost anyone else's satisfaction.
