Elizier doesn’t have sufficient justification for including such metaintuitions anyway. Scenario A illustrates this well- assuming reflecting on the issue doesn’t change the balance of what a person wants to do anyway, it doesn’t make sense and Elizier’s consequentialism is the equivalent of the stone tablet.
You really ought to learn to spell Eliezer’s name.
Anyways, it looks like you’re no longer asking for clarification of the Metaethics sequence and have switched to critiquing it; I’ll let other commenters engage with you on that.
Elizier doesn’t have sufficient justification for including such metaintuitions anyway. Scenario A illustrates this well- assuming reflecting on the issue doesn’t change the balance of what a person wants to do anyway, it doesn’t make sense and Elizier’s consequentialism is the equivalent of the stone tablet.
You really ought to learn to spell Eliezer’s name.
Anyways, it looks like you’re no longer asking for clarification of the Metaethics sequence and have switched to critiquing it; I’ll let other commenters engage with you on that.