Ways to Say "Should"
There is good reason to believe that moral entities do not exist objectively, because it is a matter of empirical fact that people disagree about them in a way that they do not disagree about physical reality.
There is good reason to believe that moral entities do not exist objectively, because it is a matter of empirical fact that people disagree about them in a way that they do not disagree about physical reality.
But can we get no closer to this determining, all-pervading word? Is Heidegger's existential ontology expressive only in terms of elusive circularity?
Should our theoretical physics remain immune to our wordly attacks? They will not we postulate! They will not!