<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Morality · Pablo Stafforini</title><link>https://stafforini.com/tags/morality/</link><description/><generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://stafforini.com/tags/morality/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>explanation</title><link>https://stafforini.com/quotes/broome-explanation/</link><pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://stafforini.com/quotes/broome-explanation/</guid><description>&lt;![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Prichard seems to have thought […] that the normativity of morality cannot be explained at all. But that does not follow. Even if there is no instrumental explanation of its normativity, there may be an explanation of some other sort. It would truly be unsatisfactory if there was no explanation at all. It would be a bad blow to philosophy to find there are inexplicable facts.</p></blockquote>
]]></description></item><item><title>morality</title><link>https://stafforini.com/quotes/chomsky-morality/</link><pubDate>Mon, 17 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://stafforini.com/quotes/chomsky-morality/</guid><description>&lt;![CDATA[<blockquote><p>In some intellectual circles, it is considered naive or foolish to be guided by moral principles. About this form of idiocy, I will have nothing to say.</p></blockquote>
]]></description></item></channel></rss>