tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post1280117032438165746..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: Sam Harris on MoralityRichard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-724673956137533092010-10-09T17:51:40.471-04:002010-10-09T17:51:40.471-04:00I think you're being a touch harsh to be hones...I think you're being a touch harsh to be honest and I actually think mistaken. <br /><br />First off I find it strange that when we engage in normal human inquiry we don't expect to have the sum total of all answers before we actually engage in the inquiry. Why should ethics be any different? But for some reason that's exactly what people expect to see. I'm curious if you think I'm wrong to think that, as with our metaphysics, our metaethics should follow our epistemology. <br /><br />As for your point about the difference between desiring and desirable he seems aware of the distinction given he that ge points out it should be obvious that we can tell that the Taliban's ethics are broken. His Moral Landscape analogy is essentially an argument saying that there are in fact many desirable ends, but most importantly that we do actually have methods of figuring out the "right" one I guess. I'll be able to put that a lot better once I've actually read the book. <br /><br />Overall I agree with your conclusion, I'm just a little bit more optimistic that when we engage in proper reflection we very often do in fact figure out what we really ought to aim at.That Guy Montaghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10387637105335886493noreply@blogger.com