Efficient critique. Thanks.
I too am a moral nihilist, and have been for a few decades. As such, my antennae quiver whenever someone promises to explain how ethics are objective.
Last night I was browsing a book my wife purchased by Peter Singer (Ethics in the Real World), in which he mentioned his book about the obscenely massive 1,4000 page ramble called ‘On What Matters’ by Parfit, that Singer claimed “put those who reject objectivism in ethics on the defensive”.
So I started thinking of some of the people in my sphere of attention who have made such claims, and Stefan’s oft-mentioned (by himself lol!) book came to mind. Also, Sam Harris’ book ‘The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values’ came to mind.
Anyhow, not wanting to waste time reading easily debunk-able theory, I thought I’d start with critique, which brings me to your page.
Over the past decade or so, whenever I’ve heard Stefan mention “universally…….” I wince at the “universal” part which is obviously impossible. And if the universal is removed, we are back in the world of subjectively preferable behavior, ie. Stefan asking us all to live a “sacrificial life” to work towards his personally preferred behavior. Ha!
Anyway, nice to read you, and I’ll be checking out your Libertarian articles next.
