The response does address some points in the later part of the text, but it seems to me that the author of the response considers the original texts to largely argue a strawman, and thus how can they engage with it deeply?
An interesting point of the response I think is that "morality" is indeed not the same as "ethics". It is a bit bad faith to accuse someone of moralizing a matter, when all they did was to explain why they consider certain behaviours ethical or not.
An interesting point of the response I think is that “morality” is indeed not the same as “ethics”. It is a bit bad faith to accuse someone of moralizing a matter, when all they did was to explain why they consider certain behaviours ethical or not.
I honestly don't know if the authors of the critique would make that distinction (but maybe thats because I dont really get the difference between those concepts)