(June 18, 2019 at 8:59 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: The truth of premises 1,2, and 3 could not establish that ethical egoism is true - it could only establish that insomuch as there might be realist obligations in the selfless set (p1), we are incapable of fulfilling them(p1,p2), and thus not morally culpable for a practical failure in that event regardless of whether or not we have an obligation to attempt. (p1,p2,p3)
It could be a solid argument for descent modification, and the underlying rationale for our intuitions about people who do their best, fail as a practical matter of fact - but are still seen as moral exemplars*, even if it doesn't demonstrate the truth of a metaethical position as contended.
*and vv, that a practical success can still be a moral failure.
Which I believe some were making a point about. I believe the point was that while you're not morally obligated to bang your head into a wall and shouldn't be morally reprimanded for not trying, the attempt is impractical and thus worthless and irrational.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
