More on The Harris Challenge*, aka here’s a time when I agree with Russell Blackford.
Please change my mind and take my money.
I doubt that anyone could put better criticisms of ethical naturalism than you’ve already seen from me in less than 1000 words
I can’t remember, have you addressed my “worst possible misery for everyone argument”?
I may not have addressed that particular para or so – but I don’t think it achieves very much. /1
In reverse order -
If it’s the worst possible misery for everyone, including me and my loved ones, I have a PRUDENTIAL reason to obviate it. /2
What if I have the choice of making myself or a loved one 3 units less miserable or someone else 5 units less miserable? /3
Am I objectively bound in the nature of things to take the second choice? I don’t see it.
In short, we have a reason to ameliorate misery insofar as we care. We are not objectively bound to in the nature of things.
Precisely. And Harris seems to be utterly blind to that, and unable to take it in when people spell it out to him.
Yet there are many people who persist in thinking his book was a bold new theory of morality, that got everything right.
*Update: previous discussion yesterday.