Difference between revisions of "Talk:Denial of the is/ought gap"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (Naberius moved page Talk:There is no is/ought problem to Talk:Denial of the is/ought gap: Expanding/revising the topic.) |
|
(No difference)
| |
Latest revision as of 18:50, 23 January 2022
Awesome subject to bring! I wonder if it's entirely a moral preference though. Isn't there a factual component to the statement that there is a distinction between the two realms? I'll have to think about it! JFG (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- I’m tending towards ‘ethical’ because his suggestion that natural human aversion to suffering crosses the is/ought boundary is an ethical characterization of the facts. OTOH, whether moral conclusions can be construed as facts is also in question here. Let’s put it as both. Naberius 23:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)