I should add, sometimes philosophers describe certain states of affairs as "morally good"; thus, the state of affairs in which John performs a morally obligatory or supererogatory action is a morally good state of affairs. (Note: a "supererogatory" action is one that literally goes above and beyond the call of one's moral duty. For example, it might be morally obligatory for you to give some of your money to charity, but it is (arguably) "supererogatory" for you to give 50% of your money to charity. (Some philosophers, like utilitarians, deny that there are any supererogatory actions.)

"how can value--subjective or objective--exist in a world that is composed only of sub-atomic particles (or superstrings, or whatever)?"

This is an interesting bit, and the roommate & I were discussing it recently.

Bob loves Plantinga.

Then Bob may very well like carrots, bon bon.

At the same time, while Plantinga is an elegant writer, much of what he discusses is at quite a high level of abstraction, so Morris might have refrained from mentioning him for that reason.

Have you read any Sider?

This is an interesting bit, and the roommate & I were discussing it recently.

This is one of the main questions meta-ethicists discuss. One philosopher who gives a fairly readable account of this, from what I remember, is Peter Railton, in his Facts, Values, and Norms: Essays toward a Morality of Consequence. The essay I'm particularly thinking of is: "Aesthetic Value, Moral Value, and the Ambitions of Naturalism".

Have you read any Sider?

I have read some Sider: his essay, "Hell and Vagueness" was good, and his new introduction to philosophy, Riddles of Existence: A Guided Tour of Metaphysics seems, from what I have read of it, to be solid and clear. There's no doubt he's a good philosopher, although I've heard that he's kind of a tool. I hope he doesn't read this board. Anyway, it's just hearsay. But it's true.

It's a little embarrassing to pop this into a conversation in which I'm feeling outclassed and outeducated, but I just graduated again.

Also? Barack Obama is hot shit. Man, what a speaker. Although... I suppose it helps that I'm already in agreement with what he was saying. Still, I liked him.

Hooray for emily

Hooray for Emily!

Congrats, Emily!

although I've heard that he's kind of a tool. I hope he doesn't read this board. Anyway, it's just hearsay. But it's true.

How could you not love him? Honestly.

I think I need Plantinga for Dummies.

There are three books that might fit that bill. There's Alvin Plantinga's God, Freedom, and Evil, which is his take, for educated laypeople, on the problem of evil. There's James Sennett's Modality, Probability, and Rationality: A Critical Examination of Alvin Plantinga's Philosophy, which places Plantinga's early and middle work in relation to each other (though it's not really for "dummies"; more like advanced philosophy undergrads and beginning philosophy grads). Finally, there's a collection of Plantinga essays, The Analytic Theist, written (of course) by Alvin Plantinga but edited by James Sennett. Nicely, it distinguishes which essays in the book are difficult and which are easy.