Intution, reason, and Harris’ moral realism
His worst-possible-misery-for-everyone thought experiment is part of a web of rationalizations to justify his intuition that stoning adulteresses is objectively wrong, etc..
Fair enough. Then what web of rationalizations do you have for your intuition that stoning adulteresses is not objectively wrong? Does it boil down to something as simple as his (silly?) thought experiment? Is it your massaged definitions of “objectivity” and “reality” that we discussed last time?
His worst-possible-misery-for-everyone thought experiment is part of a web of rationalizations to justify his intuition that stoning adulteresses is objectively wrong, etc..
Fair enough. Then what web of rationalizations do you have for your intuition that stoning adulteresses is not objectively wrong? Does it boil down to something as simple as his (silly?) thought experiment? Is it your massaged definitions of “objectivity” and “reality” that we discussed last time?
My intuition tells me that stoning adulteresses is wrong. But since I’ve yet to hear a convincing argument that right and wrong depend on something besides belief, and since my “massaged” definition of “objective” is, “independent of belief,” then I’m forced to conclude that the wrongness of stoning adulteresses cannot be “objective.”