(10-31-2018, 02:01 PM)Chas Wrote: Since he mentions both, I will simply say Hume defeats Kant, one to nil.
The idea that you can't get an ought from an is assumes that there is more to what is than what is.
Kant's moral framework is nonsensical as he's a deontologist and only consequentialism makes sense.
But objective morality does make sense consequentially.
My Argument Against Free Will Wrote:(1) Ultimately, to control your actions you have to originate your original nature.
(2) But you can't originate your original nature—it's already there.
(3) So, ultimately, you can't control your actions.
