tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post3345303392469415274..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: Another quote from SmithRussell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-8270295877335966112011-08-12T20:32:34.251+10:002011-08-12T20:32:34.251+10:00Yep, that religious concern stands in start contra...Yep, that religious concern stands in start contrast to rational conceptions of morality like ... Kant, and the Stoics?<br /><br />I think that bugged me the first, or if not the second, time I read it. "Rational" conceptions -- meaning those the most focused on reason -- tend to more similar to those sorts of concerns than they are to the ones that do put man's life and human welfare first. Si I'd actually argue that rational conceptions themselves stand in stark contrast to what he calls rational conceptions, where I mean "rational" to be "strictly reason-based".<br /><br />Now, he could mean "rational" in a weaker sense, meaning ones that are reasonable and justified, but then he'd have time excluding Kant and the Stoics from that as well.Verbose Stoichttp://verbosestoic.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-81801048843983321352011-08-11T22:30:14.748+10:002011-08-11T22:30:14.748+10:00The vagueness doesn't worry me because I'm...The vagueness doesn't worry me because I'm not looking for highly determinate purposes for morality or highly determinate advice from a moral system. <br /><br />I think that the vagueness of something like this is a big problem for someone like Sam Harris, who seems to think, when you dig into the detail, that there are always determinate moral answers or facts if only we could discover them. But it doesn't have to be a problem for everyone who wants to say such things.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-67234206003602200642011-08-11T19:28:13.249+10:002011-08-11T19:28:13.249+10:00"Wellfare"? Why but that's more mudd..."Wellfare"? Why but that's more muddily defined than "sosaysgodbecausism." How arrogant.Svlad Cjellinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-31026319155316990792011-08-11T15:20:09.012+10:002011-08-11T15:20:09.012+10:00Nothing but blatant specieisism.Nothing but blatant specieisism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com