Difference between revisions of "Talk:Denial of the is/ought gap"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "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! ~~~~") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
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! [[User:JFG|JFG]] ([[User talk:JFG|talk]]) 20:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC) | 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! [[User:JFG|JFG]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Naberius|Naberius]] 23:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:41, 22 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)