Posted: Oct 12, 2010 5:45 pm
by Shrunk
I'm being too oblique. Sorry about that. Here's what I'm trying to say.

If truth corresponds to reality, then, if there is moral truth,
shouldn't it correspond to a real good, an always fulfilled ought? If
it is always true, it always corresponds--to a good that always is, to
an ought that is always fulfilled. So, if Sam Harris wants to call
this good/ought "well-being"--then (skipping the definition of "well"
for now) moral truth (always true) corresponds to being that is
(always) well--the real standard, the real pattern, but Harris denies
the existence of such a being. Hence, the question.

The above quote, which is typical of your writing, is so atrociously written and incoherently reasoned that it is flabbergasting that someone would consider it fit for public consumption. That is, unless the writer is in the throes of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

IMHO, of course.

EDIT: BTW, am I to understand correctly that your comments are based on the cover of Harris' book?