Talk:Denial of the is/ought gap

Revision as of 18:50, 23 January 2022 by Naberius (talk | contribs) (Naberius moved page Talk:There is no is/ought problem to Talk:Denial of the is/ought gap: Expanding/revising the topic.)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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)