This is a common objection, and in my opinion, not a very thoughtful one. Are you suggesting that there is a drug that can give you pleasure while not numbing yourself to all kinds of ways of getting pleasure, like intellectual pursuits, creative achievements, and so on? Even the pleasure of overcoming obstacles? Ultimately, the question is yours. You are the person denying all kinds of things… why don’t you tell me what’s lost? It’s a simple question. I’m not the one claiming to know what it is: you are. Answer it.
And lastly, what is with you just begging questions and so on? It’s this, and it’s the difference between prudential oughts and moral oughts… you keep making assumptions, and never saying a word about them… even after being asked like 5 times. I’m tired of it.
At what point did I say that suffering and flourishing were true for all people in the way biology and physics are? I’ve explicitly denied the notion that there are universals in ethics. You’ve said before (insultingly) that I don’t seem to follow the thread. Is that hypocrisy again?
A non-moral ought? Listen, every time you imply that something could be a moral ought but not a prudential one, or a prudential one but not a moral one, you are begging the question. And the notion that there’s some emotive ‘ought’ separate from both is utterly nonsensical. The baby ought not have suffered. If you think I should call it either moral or prudential THEN EXPLAIN THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM!!! …So that I know which to call it.
Ahem.