Given that someone was saying something plausible already in 1939, why, in 2023, does everyone devote so much air time to two theories that are literally impossible to take seriously? -- Ethics does not have to be consistent. It has to be humble: we have to admit that we're fallible about it. When two of our intuitions seem to conflict (or two of our principles, or one of our principles and one of our intuitions), we have to acknowledge that we might be mistaken about either (including the possibility that we might be mistaken about both), or about whether the seeming conflict is genuine.
I have heard others say that what Ross probably meant to use was pro tanto instead of prima facie.
Given that someone was saying something plausible already in 1939, why, in 2023, does everyone devote so much air time to two theories that are literally impossible to take seriously?
--
Ethics does not have to be consistent. It has to be humble: we have to admit that we're fallible about it. When two of our intuitions seem to conflict (or two of our principles, or one of our principles and one of our intuitions), we have to acknowledge that we might be mistaken about either (including the possibility that we might be mistaken about both), or about whether the seeming conflict is genuine.