Nope. You’d have to post an output of your reasoning to give us an opportunity to find a bug. Other than that, I can only direct you to the metaethics and zombie) sequences.
Also, using the word “rationally” here is a bad idea, since it doesn’t add anything other than misleading connotational gloss. (A position defensible “rationally” as opposed to defensible in what manner?)
Are you saying you disagree with my statement, or that positions can only be claimed to be defensible if reasoning is provided?
I’m saying that your statement is wrong, but I can only convince you of that if you give more information about why you believe it, and what exactly it is that you believe.
Nope. You’d have to post an output of your reasoning to give us an opportunity to find a bug. Other than that, I can only direct you to the metaethics and zombie) sequences.
Also, using the word “rationally” here is a bad idea, since it doesn’t add anything other than misleading connotational gloss. (A position defensible “rationally” as opposed to defensible in what manner?)
Suggestion noted. I posted it because I felt that it was tasty connotational gloss, but accuracy is more important than “taste”.
“Nope. You’d have to post an output of your reasoning to give us an opportunity to find a bug.”
Are you saying you disagree with my statement, or that positions can only be claimed to be defensible if reasoning is provided?
I’m saying that your statement is wrong, but I can only convince you of that if you give more information about why you believe it, and what exactly it is that you believe.