Greetings,
I merely wanted to repeat my meta-ethical question about the position of the term
'good' in the MoQ.
Anyone else interested in how it fits in with current ethical theory. Is it
naturalistic,
non-naturalistic, non-cognitive or something new? My own view is that it is a form of
naturalism and
yet I find it difficult to see how it escapes the naturalistic fallacy.
Anyone able to help or are we all happy to think our metaphysics has value at the
core, despite our
reticence (or inability) to analyse, at a meta-ethical level, what we mean by that.
Struan
------------------------------------------
Struan Hellier
< mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"All our best activities involve desires which are disciplined and
purified in the process."
(Iris Murdoch)
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
