at this point it's clear we have diametrically opposing standpoints. I don't think this is the best place to have this discussion especially because it really starts to go beyond what I, as an ESL fag can express in english.
But let me at least say this:
>>106283167>The genes and memes that don't survive won't continue to exist. If they are able to survive they will continue to exist. That's what's relevant.this still doesn't solve the fact-value
gap.It doesn't provide an answer to the question why exactly it is of value or any other form of relevance to continue existing.
>Norms are memes. Values don't exist without minds to judge between different courses of action.If values exist without minds or not is a whole other meta-ethical question and I don't dare to tap into that right here, right now. My point however was that I want to differenciate between two forms of judgement. It all comes down to the fact-value gap again and also if you can plausibly counter the accusation of the Naturalistic fallacy. Again I won't touch on how or if you do. Let me at least say that it seems counter intuitive to reduce normative judgement to descriptive statements.
>Non-consequentialist ethics are heuristics, they're easily remembered rules that apply in most situations. Despite ostensibly not caring about the consequences, in most cases the effects are the same so most of the time there isn't much difference.this is an oversimplification I think. The outcome of non-consequentialist and consequentialist models are potentially wildly different. This is in my opinion to bold of a reduction and ignores secondary problems that arise from the value-fact reduction.
This is all I have to say about this at fucking 4chan. I mean it was at least nice to not be flamed to death while arguing, but this just isn't the place for this debate and I don't see us reaching a satisfying conclusion to the discussion on this image board.
