Near as I can tell, you’re proposing some “good meta-ethical rules,” though you may have skipped the difficult parts. And I think the claim, “you stop when your morality is perfectly self-consistent,” was more a factual prediction than an imperative.
Near as I can tell, you’re proposing some “good meta-ethical rules,” though you may have skipped the difficult parts. And I think the claim, “you stop when your morality is perfectly self-consistent,” was more a factual prediction than an imperative.
I didn’t skip the difficult bits, because I didn’t propose a full solution. I stated an approach to dissolving the problem.
And do you think that approach differs from the one you quoted?
It involves reasoning about facts rather than metaphysics.