Really?
I interpret him to be saying something fairly non-dualistic - namely, that morality is not an ontologically basic thing separate from physics.
He also may be saying that moral claims reduce to fact claims in some sense, which is almost true (you need to throw some values in as well).
Are you coming at this from the perspective of a moral nihilist?
I interpret him to be saying something fairly non-dualistic - namely, that morality is not an ontologically basic thing separate from physics.
I did not like the particular way he was trying to make morality relate to physics. I thought it asserted a confused relationship between 'is' and 'ought'.
He also may be saying that moral claims reduce to fact claims in some sense, which is almost true (you need to throw some values in as well).
I think that was a point that he was at least trying to make and it is something I agree with.
...Are you coming at thi
This is our monthly thread for collecting these little gems and pearls of wisdom, rationality-related quotes you've seen recently, or had stored in your quotesfile for ages, and which might be handy to link to in one of our discussions.