It may not be great, but I did give an argument. Roughly, again,
a) wants do entail oughts (plausible)
b) wanting = being in unproblematically naturalistic state ABC (from assumption of naturalism)
c) from a and b, there is some true statement of the form ‘being in naturalistic state ABC entails an ought’
d) but no claim of the form ‘being in naturalistic state ABC entails an ought’ is plausible
I infer from the contradiction between c and d to the falsity of b. If you could formulate your dissatisfaction as a criticism of a premise or of the reasoning, I’d be happy to listen. In particular, if you can come up with a plausible counter-example to (d), I would like to hear it.
t may not be great, but I did give an argument. Roughly, again,
a) wants do entail oughts (plausible)
b) wanting = being in unproblematically naturalistic state ABC (from assumption of naturalism)
c) from a and b, there is some true statement of the form ‘being in naturalistic state ABC entails an ought’
d) but no claim of the form ‘being in naturalistic state ABC entails an ought’ is plausible
I infer from the contradiction between c and d to the falsity of b. If you could formulate your dissatisfaction as a criticism of a premise or of the reasoning, I’d be happy to listen. In particular, if you can come up with a plausible counter-example to (d), I would like to hear it.
It may not be great, but I did give an argument. Roughly, again,
a) wants do entail oughts (plausible) b) wanting = being in unproblematically naturalistic state ABC (from assumption of naturalism) c) from a and b, there is some true statement of the form ‘being in naturalistic state ABC entails an ought’ d) but no claim of the form ‘being in naturalistic state ABC entails an ought’ is plausible
I infer from the contradiction between c and d to the falsity of b. If you could formulate your dissatisfaction as a criticism of a premise or of the reasoning, I’d be happy to listen. In particular, if you can come up with a plausible counter-example to (d), I would like to hear it.
t may not be great, but I did give an argument. Roughly, again,
a) wants do entail oughts (plausible)
b) wanting = being in unproblematically naturalistic state ABC (from assumption of naturalism)
c) from a and b, there is some true statement of the form ‘being in naturalistic state ABC entails an ought’
d) but no claim of the form ‘being in naturalistic state ABC entails an ought’ is plausible
I infer from the contradiction between c and d to the falsity of b. If you could formulate your dissatisfaction as a criticism of a premise or of the reasoning, I’d be happy to listen. In particular, if you can come up with a plausible counter-example to (d), I would like to hear it.