/lit/ - Literature

>>21441522
this random niche exchange on moral error theory between Richard Joyce and Stephen Finlay was unexpectedly funny. always nice to see moralists get BTFOd
>However, it may be that in advocating these claims I am merely manifesting the blinkering influence of an upbringing in a ‘melting pot made up of immigrants from a wide variety of backgrounds’ [368]—a peculiarly Australasian misfortune that has clouded my capacity to think clearly on these matters. I say this in response to the curious closing portion of Finlay’s paper where he aims to analyse why the moral error-theoretic stance is a ‘characteristically antipodean view’ [347]. At the risk of being impolite, I think his comments are most charitably interpreted as a joke. If one were to entertain such wild ad hominem speculations, one could just as easily attribute to the antipodean error theorist a kind of courage to sincerely question deeply entrenched human beliefs in the face of overwhelming opposition: a courage born of the spirit of those plucky Anzacs confronting a deeply entrenched enemy in the hills of Gallipoli. One might with as much warrant claim that the antipodean error theorist’s refusal to kowtow to conservative forces finds its origins in the tenacious self-sufficiency of the early pioneering families, in the fierce autonomy of Ned Kelly and Hone Heke. But oh what silly arguments those would be.