tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6204664686568393114.post3820771337826547995..comments2023-11-02T01:43:20.189-07:00Comments on At Wisdom's End: Surveying the Moral LandscapeSamuel C Bunchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13931395216787784171noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6204664686568393114.post-13150240390469256612013-11-14T05:41:41.145-08:002013-11-14T05:41:41.145-08:00Very well put. He does seem to view eudaimonia as...Very well put. He does seem to view eudaimonia as an inherent good in practice whether or not he would endorse the idea explicitly.<br /><br />I'm sorry it took me so long to notice and respond to this comment. I will try to keep a better eye out in the future.Samuel C Bunchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13931395216787784171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6204664686568393114.post-15882470838849445162013-07-23T10:39:33.988-07:002013-07-23T10:39:33.988-07:00I found myself agreeing with Harris on some things...I found myself agreeing with Harris on some things in his book. But it confuses me when he claims to oppose ideas that he actually implicitly endorses. For example, he says he doesn't believe there are "inherent goods". But actually, on his view, well-being is an inherent good. And he attacks the ought-is distinction for distinguishing between factual and ethical knowledge, but then conceded the same when he says that science can't tell you why you ought to be good, but does inform you how to achieve the good, once you've properly realized what the good is. And then, of course, the subtitle of the book is misleading, for it doesn't show that science determines our values, which I thought was the whole point that his endeavor was supposed to showfinneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12716499100306513674noreply@blogger.com