??? I really can't explain any better than that, I'm afraid. If you still don't understand what I mean, saying it all over again is unlikely to help. I am speaking to what is optimum human morality which SH explains by saying it is akin to an optimum human diet.
You can't really blame someone who is arguing there is no 'ought' separate from 'is' for not having an 'ought' separate from 'is.' You can only say it won't convince amoral people but this is true of every argument for morality. You'd need to step away from your need for ought.
-
-
You're not following because this is counterintuitive to where you are coming from but I'll only be repeating myself if I try to explain further. This is why I get so bored and frustrated with these conversations and don't have them any more. Best to read Sam Harris.
-
Fair enough. I'll go read Harris. At this point tweeting about it isn't likely to be productive.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.