(October 15, 2021 at 9:20 am)DLJ Wrote: @vulcanlogician
Thanks for the feedback. Very much appreciated.
I haven't watched all of Stich's lectures so I don't know if he attempts to move beyond the descriptive. But I will.
To do so, I need to introduce a new model - already referred to as the GMO/OMG thingy. Give me a little while though. My notes on this are at home in Malaysia so I've have to recreate it (good practice for me) and it's late here so I'll tackle it tomorrow.
I think your model is accurate. 100% accurate or thereabouts... so I don't think you can improve it.
Stich's work is similarly accurate and enlightening. Stich wonders if there can be an "ought" except from the norm box (norms acquired from proximal cues-which could be anything). It's a good question. Moral nihilists propose a good (and honest) challenge to moral realism. I agree with you (and Stich). The arguments for moral nihilism are strong.
When I say we can use reason/logic to objectively discern good actions from bad, it isn't a criticism of you guys' models. I think the models are good. It's a counter-challenge to moral nihilism.