"In fact, only in a godless universe can any facts be truly mind-independent."
Of course, as a theist, I agree that all contingent facts are causally dependent on God. But in metaethics, moral realist argues that moral facts possess constitutive (not causal) stance-independence. In the same way the fact of what pair of shoes I chose to wear today is causally dependent on my mind, that fact is constitutively stance independent.
In Footnote 3, there is a question of what perfect goodness means. From perfect being theism, perfect goodness is the absolute fullness of reality, entirely free from any lack, defect, or potential for change. Being and goodness are are convertible in reality, but they differ in thought.
It seems to me that of the approximate 134 paragraphs, 104 can be ruled out as having contributed nothing to this "Code of Scientific Morality". The remaining 30 at least gave some reference to limited definitions, explanations, or suggestions. I think it might be more helpful to just put Ayn's work here rather than use her name and work to sustain yours? I was hoping to see your idea of this code of scientific morality. Thanks all the same. Interesting article.
The best article describing our ethics that I have read in a very long time. Excellent work Ben!
"In fact, only in a godless universe can any facts be truly mind-independent."
Of course, as a theist, I agree that all contingent facts are causally dependent on God. But in metaethics, moral realist argues that moral facts possess constitutive (not causal) stance-independence. In the same way the fact of what pair of shoes I chose to wear today is causally dependent on my mind, that fact is constitutively stance independent.
In Footnote 3, there is a question of what perfect goodness means. From perfect being theism, perfect goodness is the absolute fullness of reality, entirely free from any lack, defect, or potential for change. Being and goodness are are convertible in reality, but they differ in thought.
It seems to me that of the approximate 134 paragraphs, 104 can be ruled out as having contributed nothing to this "Code of Scientific Morality". The remaining 30 at least gave some reference to limited definitions, explanations, or suggestions. I think it might be more helpful to just put Ayn's work here rather than use her name and work to sustain yours? I was hoping to see your idea of this code of scientific morality. Thanks all the same. Interesting article.