Very bad thinking

[Nearly Sane]

This is so badly written and thought through that I had to share it.



https://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2018/08/two-sources-of-objectivity-in-ethics.html

[SteveH]

It would be helpful if you said why you think it's badly written and thought through - then we can have a punch-up slanging match argument discussion about it.

[Nearly Sane]

It would be helpful if you said why you think it's badly written and thought through - then we can have a punch-up slanging match argument discussion about it.

Essentially it derives objections from subjective thought. It leaps over the boundary of hard solipsism by ignoring it, and in addition it uses the idea of an ad populism definition to ignore it.

[jeremyp]

Essentially it derives objections from subjective thought. It leaps over the boundary of hard solipsism by ignoring it, and in addition it uses the idea of an ad populism definition to ignore it.

What's wrong with ignoring solipsism?

[Nearly Sane]

What's wrong with ignoring solipsism?

In day to day life, nothing. In a logical argument about objectivity, it is  illogical.

[SteveH]

Essentially it derives objections from subjective thought. It leaps over the boundary of hard solipsism by ignoring it, and in addition it uses the idea of an ad populism definition to ignore it.

Golly - one might almost think you know what you're talking about!

[Nearly Sane]

Golly - one might almost think you know what you're talking about!

Oh we can't have that, isn't that against the rules somewhere?