7 upvotes, 2 direct replies (showing 2)
View submission: Problems with the is/ought fallacy?
It's commonly misunderstood in popular comments. For some reason people have got the idea that it implies moral nihilism--Sam Harris has mischaracterized it in this way, and that seems to be where some people are getting this from, but the misunderstanding seems to be broader than that.
Comment by [deleted] at 13/09/2019 at 08:28 UTC
1 upvotes, 2 direct replies
Are there some authors trying to interpret Hume in a more radical way, like if he was also affirming the absolute distinction between an "is" an a "ought" and that there are no normative truths at all?
And on the opposite, are there some people try to understand Hume in a more moderate light, as if he was actually saying that the vulgar systems of morality just need better explanations to derive an ought from an is, and Hume was just skeptical of this solution rather than exclude it as a non sequitur?
I understand that both those positions are probably considerated fringe by the large majority of Hume experts, still i wonder if someone has tried to defend them.
Comment by DieFreien at 12/09/2019 at 08:02 UTC
1 upvotes, 2 direct replies
Yeah, I was actually a huge fan of Harris in my early teens. I've since seen beyond his failures as an intellectual. Honestly, after a re-read of A Moral Landscape, I realize insults like "boring philosophy" as a justification for his claims to moral objectivity are nonsense. He dismisses an entire philosophical tradition! Thank you so much! I also read some of your other replies. I'm glad people like you devote your time to the same questions to help people like me.