Those connotations roughly capture my intention. Claiming that someone’s is invoking a fallacy is a kind of put-down. However, if the claimed fallacy is just someone’s opinion (about what they think the word “good” ought to refer to) it doesn’t work to well.
I am unimpressed by Moore’s claims. Labelling your intellectual opponents’ thinking as fallacious when it is not is an underhand debating tactic that gets no respect from me. Moore wasn’t even on the better side of the argument. He opposed naturalism and reductionism. It should be no mystery why I think his views sucked—it’s because they did.
Tim, I wish our exchange could be a bit more amiable, but you caused me to read up on some stuff that may be changing the way I think. For this I thank you.
I’ve already acknowledged that “Appeal to Nature” is a more precise concept and that is what I might be inclined to reference in similar situations in the future. I’m even willing to question that practice. If you have time to provide some preferred concepts/vocabulary, that would be great.
Do you agree that improving one’s genetic fitness should be a terminal value for people?
Do you agree that Phil seemed to imply that?
Phil claimed that genetic fitness mattered for ethics—which it probably does. For example, the Shakers believed that everyone should be celibate—and now there aren’t any of them around any more.
There would still be Shakers around if they had been able to keep up the practice of adopting children indefinitely. According to Wikipedia, that only stopped working when adoption became the province of the state. Wikipedia also says that there are still four Shakers today and people may join them if they like.
Those connotations roughly capture my intention. Claiming that someone’s is invoking a fallacy is a kind of put-down. However, if the claimed fallacy is just someone’s opinion (about what they think the word “good” ought to refer to) it doesn’t work to well.
I am unimpressed by Moore’s claims. Labelling your intellectual opponents’ thinking as fallacious when it is not is an underhand debating tactic that gets no respect from me. Moore wasn’t even on the better side of the argument. He opposed naturalism and reductionism. It should be no mystery why I think his views sucked—it’s because they did.
Tim, I wish our exchange could be a bit more amiable, but you caused me to read up on some stuff that may be changing the way I think. For this I thank you.
I’ve already acknowledged that “Appeal to Nature” is a more precise concept and that is what I might be inclined to reference in similar situations in the future. I’m even willing to question that practice. If you have time to provide some preferred concepts/vocabulary, that would be great.
Do you agree that improving one’s genetic fitness should be a terminal value for people? Do you agree that Phil seemed to imply that?
Phil claimed that genetic fitness mattered for ethics—which it probably does. For example, the Shakers believed that everyone should be celibate—and now there aren’t any of them around any more.
There would still be Shakers around if they had been able to keep up the practice of adopting children indefinitely. According to Wikipedia, that only stopped working when adoption became the province of the state. Wikipedia also says that there are still four Shakers today and people may join them if they like.
People can choose their own values. Inclusive genetic fitness seems like a reasonable-enough maximand to me—because it is mine—see:
http://alife.co.uk/essays/nietzscheanism/