“You might have been a slave” is imaginable in a way that “you might have been an automobil” is not. See Rawls and Kant.
Yup. But would they argue as Jagan did that “rationality does not apply to moral arguments. Morality is an emotional response by its very nature”? I’m specifically interested in Jagan’s answers to my questions, given that assertion.
“You might have been a slave” is imaginable in a way that “you might have been an automobil” is not. See Rawls and Kant.
Yup. But would they argue as Jagan did that “rationality does not apply to moral arguments. Morality is an emotional response by its very nature”? I’m specifically interested in Jagan’s answers to my questions, given that assertion.