Posted: Feb 06, 2011 12:50 am
Russell's comment just reads to me like a non-cognitivist. Pay particular attention to "they cannot be intellectually decided at all, and lie outside the realm of truth and falsehood". He would differ with Moore if that were his view, because Moore was a cognitivist (thought ethical statements could be true or false), but the way in which Moore's view seemed mysterious was probably about his non-naturalism.
It's not really a refutation of realism in general, but I do think it's something Harris needs to deal with. That his view hasn't even attempted to deal with Moore yet, whose work is considered the starting point for foundational issues in the contemporary field just says that Harris's view is dramatically under-developed for the purpose of convincing anyone who has seen this before.
I don't know if Harris has even heard of non-cognitivism.
It's not really a refutation of realism in general, but I do think it's something Harris needs to deal with. That his view hasn't even attempted to deal with Moore yet, whose work is considered the starting point for foundational issues in the contemporary field just says that Harris's view is dramatically under-developed for the purpose of convincing anyone who has seen this before.
I don't know if Harris has even heard of non-cognitivism.