(October 31, 2018 at 5:59 am)Belaqua Wrote: ...
If we accept that ethics is the field which asks, "how best may we flourish?" then I think that the concept of moral facts becomes quite easy to accept.
...
Agreed. And if we don't accept that premise? What then?
Rob's thread on the Harris's Moral Landscape covered this ground.
Sam Harris, Michael Shermer and Matt Dillahunty have all bought into this notion.
Incidentally, a few years ago I had a good face-to-face conversation with the latter, over a pint or three, to put him straight. He agreed with me but thought that the semantics of my version of morality would be too confusing for yer average audience so continues to espouse 'objective' morality but now at least when he does so he will note that this is axiomatic. So, I'll claim a minor victory on that one.
The PURPOSE of life is to replicate our DNA ................. (from Darwin)
The MEANING of life is the experience of living ... (from Frank Herbert)
The VALUE of life is the legacy we leave behind ..... (from observation)
The MEANING of life is the experience of living ... (from Frank Herbert)
The VALUE of life is the legacy we leave behind ..... (from observation)