I think DCT and Functionalism are both equally annoying theories, and both equally inaccurate.

DCT totally fails when approached with the Euthyphro dilemma (Is stuff moral because God commands it, or does God command it because it is moral?) unless you accept the argument that God is by definition moral, which I don't. That generally requires some other standard of morality in the first place.

And then there's functionalism, which ascribes immoral motivations to moral actions. So the only reason why I'm not killing people right now is because I don't want people to kill me.

(Then again, yeah, that is the reason I'm not on a killing spree right now.)

But then it of course ascribes odd motivations to every nice action, saying that people generally don't do nice stuff for the sake of being nice. So that nice uncle who bought you a sweet when you were 5 didn't do it to see the smile on your face; he did it so he could kidnap you/rape you/murder you.

I MEAN, HELLO, HOW MUCH MORE CYNICAL CAN YOU GET?

There are times I wonder whether I would have been more idealistic if I hadn't learnt Philo. But then of course I would be dumber, which would have not been very nice.

I saw this quote in a Bertrand Russell essay which I liked: something about people around you: even though they have bodies and semblances of thought, it doesn't necessarily mean that they have a brain.

This reeks of elitism, but I assure you it was in the context of skepticism: I know that I exist, but how do I know that YOU exist? Just because you say you exist doesn't convince me a bit. My dreams tell me they exist too.

How do I know my blog isn't completely devoid of readers now?

DO YOU EXIST, READERS?

Nah, I thought not. I am sure that I'm the only one who actually exists around here.