/lit/ - Literature

>>6525718
Obliviously skewers hacks repeating is/ought as if they were philosophers, and as if it was relevant to Harris' argument, pretty well.

When Chomsky frequently compares acts by terrorists and states and mentions they are the same and therefore should be treated the same, the is/ought problem is suddenly forgotten by those upset with Harris. Chomsky and Harris' positions are both consequentialist and much closer to each other than observers seem to realize.

Does the fact that it was Hume matter? Is it important to personify the arguments of the dead? Are the great and dead philosophers' personal opinions worthy of all the respect a starry eyed undergrad is capable of?

But what if the hack were wrong? What if, in fact, if Hume were alive Harris and he would be besties? How would this relate to the argument? The picture attached to this post is meant to illustrate this hypothetical and generate discussion on /lit/.