I think this is consistent with Will’s definition because you can view the ‘should’ claims as what we should do conditional on us accepting the goal of doing the most good using reason and evidence.
It’s not contradictory, but it seems like your comment goes against his post’s insistence on the nuance. Will was being careful about this sort of absolutism, and I think at least part of the reason for doing so—not alienating those who differ on specifics , and treating out conclusions as tentative—is the point I am highlighting. Perhaps I’m reading his words too closely, but that’s the reason I wrote the introduction the way I did; I was making the point that his nuance is instructive.
I think this is consistent with Will’s definition because you can view the ‘should’ claims as what we should do conditional on us accepting the goal of doing the most good using reason and evidence.
It’s not contradictory, but it seems like your comment goes against his post’s insistence on the nuance. Will was being careful about this sort of absolutism, and I think at least part of the reason for doing so—not alienating those who differ on specifics , and treating out conclusions as tentative—is the point I am highlighting. Perhaps I’m reading his words too closely, but that’s the reason I wrote the introduction the way I did; I was making the point that his nuance is instructive.