EDit

Shat! I did it again,dual post

@White

Ohhh- OMS ...have you heard of Sam Harris? One other issue, I’d take up with him is his viewpoint of “relative morality”. I don’t (obviously) have a complete idea of his take, but in the one debate with Jordan Peterson, I could definitely poke a few holes based on his own reasoning.

I've heard the name. Associated with two atheists I consider grossly overestimated . Richard Dawkins and Chris Hitchens.

I had a look at what Harris has to say about morality, and went from there to Humes and the is/ought question. Seems I have a bit of reading to do this afternoon.

Just in case you are unfamiliar:

"The is–ought problem, as articulated by the Scottish philosopher and historian David Hume, states that many writers make claims about what ought to be, based on statements about what is. Hume found that there seems to be a significant difference between positive statements (about what is) and prescriptive or normative statements (about what ought to be), and that it is not obvious how one can coherently move from descriptive statements to prescriptive ones. The is–ought problem is also known as Hume's law or Hume's guillotine.

A similar view is defended by G. E. Moore's open-question argument, intended to refute any identification of moral properties with natural properties. This so-called naturalistic fallacy stands in contrast to the views of ethical naturalists.

The is–ought problem is closely related to the fact–value distinction in epistemology. Though the terms are often used interchangeably, academic discourse concerning the latter may encompass aesthetics in addition to ethics."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem#:~:text=The%20is–ought%20problem%2C%20as,on%20statements%20about%20what%20is.&text=The%20is–ought%20problem%20is,Hume%27s%20law%20or%20Hume%27s%20guillotine.

@White

Yoooo Cranks - you ever listen to Richard read his fan mail?,"

Yair, I have as it turns out. Tres drole

I also once saw him demolish an irreducible complexity nitwit by using his discipline of evolutionary biology---at which he is competent, not the leader in his field he has allowed himself to be described.

That was I think the only time I have been favourably impressed by Mr Dawkins. The rest of the time I've found him to be weak philosopher and personally obnoxious. He allows himself to be described as some kind of atheist spokesperson. Wasn't aware we'd had an election.

Yet I think more highly of Dawkins than I ever did of Chris Hitchens. Him I consider to have been be a glib, racist polemicist. Should have stuck to writing op eds for newspapers.

Seven pages later and we are beating on the same drum, only because Homer won't listen, try to understand, and just wants everything to go around and around in circles. He switches persona based on how to respond. The simpleton, the wise uncle, the victim, the accommodating and caring brother.

At least I am consistent, caring for those who are sincere, and an asshole to jerks.

Tin... you have such a Talent for song lyrics!
I still get “...he done run awaaaayyyy....”
playing in my head every so often!