4 ms·
That's a very interesting section. There's a citation on "There are three reasons why I disagree with this explanation. The first is that value questions are o
by Natsu 12y ago
That's a very interesting section. There's a citation on "There are three reasons why I disagree with this explanation. The first is that value questions are objective, and moral anti-realism is completely unjustified" which cites http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/objectiv.htm http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/objectiv.htm
A page which does not, at present, exist -
The requested URL /~huemer/objectiv.htm was not found on this server.
Apache Server at spot.colorado.edu Port 80
- michaelkeenan 12y agoI think the correct URL should be http://www.owl232.net/objectiv.htm http://www.owl232.net/objectiv.htm
- icebraining 12y agoIt also has a note that refers to his book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_Intuitionism_%28book%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_Intuitionism_%28book%29
- bobcostas55 12y agoThe crux of the argument is in 3.3...he's basically parroting the worst parts of Kant. The argument was destroyed by Hume before it was even put forth, ridiculed by Nietzsche (BGE 11, a very entertaining passage), and then had all its foundations removed by Quine in Two Dogmas. This is not philosophy, it's badly-cloaked theology. Like cavemen attributing the thunder to a god, except even worse because now we have the tools and the knowledge to know there is no such thing.
- aidos 12y agoThis is well outside my sphere of knowledge. Are you able to lay out the basic arguments that you're referring too? (I appreciate that might be to onerous a task, given the amount of material you've cited)