Political disputes are usually about moral disagreements is an improvement over what I said.
If my meta-ethics is right, that assertion and my original are isomorphic. And if your metaethics is right, my assertion risks being very misleading.
This may not be a good assesment of how you are using it, but I think “fundamental terminal value differences” is often used as an excuse to stop thinking about moral questions that you really should be thinking about.
Absolutely. This is one of the central lessons my sentence was intended to impart.
Failing the is-ought distinction is a predictable effect of failing to realize that one is having a terminal value dispute.
Explain. I don’t see it.
On reflection, I think I was over-hasty here. Failing to notice that a political dispute arises out of a moral dispute tends to cause people to treat moral propositions as facts—to gain political advantage (aka mindkiller). But “is-ought confusion” is usually used as the label for treating facts as moral conclusions. Since that doesn’t function as naturally for political advantage, it probably isn’t as direct a consequence of artificial divide of politics & morals.
Political disputes are usually about moral disagreements is an improvement over what I said.
If my meta-ethics is right, that assertion and my original are isomorphic. And if your metaethics is right, my assertion risks being very misleading.
Absolutely. This is one of the central lessons my sentence was intended to impart.
On reflection, I think I was over-hasty here. Failing to notice that a political dispute arises out of a moral dispute tends to cause people to treat moral propositions as facts—to gain political advantage (aka mindkiller). But “is-ought confusion” is usually used as the label for treating facts as moral conclusions. Since that doesn’t function as naturally for political advantage, it probably isn’t as direct a consequence of artificial divide of politics & morals.