BB is quoted: “When we reflect on what it’s like to, for example, eat tasty food, we conclude that it’s good. Thus, we are reliably informed of a moral fact. “
Stipulating the first sentence, how would we arrive at the second? BB disregards the distinction between moral good and prudential good. Is he such a hedonist that they are the same? Yet later he insists on impartiality, but a decision about what to eat is quite partial.
Would he say that I am being immoral when I choose not to eat fattening foods, although I would enjoy them more? Or prudently pursuing better health? In either case, it is a matter of prudence, not morality. So his statement is at least misleading and more likely wrong.
BB is quoted: “When we reflect on what it’s like to, for example, eat tasty food, we conclude that it’s good. Thus, we are reliably informed of a moral fact. “
Stipulating the first sentence, how would we arrive at the second? BB disregards the distinction between moral good and prudential good. Is he such a hedonist that they are the same? Yet later he insists on impartiality, but a decision about what to eat is quite partial.
Would he say that I am being immoral when I choose not to eat fattening foods, although I would enjoy them more? Or prudently pursuing better health? In either case, it is a matter of prudence, not morality. So his statement is at least misleading and more likely wrong.
Yes. I think studying philosophy can, in some ways, make people reason worse and can actively foster confusions.