Political Crossfire Forums

No worries, i'm liking the slower and saner pace of this thread atm.

takes two to tango broseph

Yeah, yeah, I know.

Cool response, I won't get around to a proper response for a while, so sit tight.

Needless to say, what you had intended to communicate by 'objective morality' and what interpreted look like they were pretty different.

One thing, are you saying that Hume's sentimentalism doesn't contain a definite normative (as in, ought-statement normative) component? As I've said, I don't really engage much with ethics, but Humean sentimentalism is actually the only ethics that I have spent a sizeable chunk of time pouring through the primary sources of, by virtue of writing that paper I mentioned. So yea, I've been through the Treatise and Enquiry and like half of Smiths fatass work on morals as well (oh god why) and I would definitely disagree with the idea that sentimentalism doesn't contain a pretty crucial normative component.

But if you're just emphasizing the descriptive side of it to emphasize what sets your project apart from the dominant discourse then I won't bother making this Hume-tangent we've got going even bigger when my response comes.