I'm puzzled by these comments, which suggest the reviewer missed key sections of the book: -There's an entire section explicitly explaining the notion of "urgency" and the specific way in which I use it - a facet of suffering reflecting the need to do something about it. -I rigorously avoid the use of moral realist language as it pertains to actions (“ought”, “should”, “right” and “wrong”) and explain why, while still allowing for descriptors like “good” and “bad” as mapping to subjective states. The reasoning is clearly explained. -There's a section on preference satisfaction that specifically contrasts wants and desires with the avoidance of suffering or frustration, which is what meeting needs ultimately comes down to - a running theme in the book.
I took care to clarify my terms and call attention to subtle but important differences in how these words are used, which is central to my arguments. There’s no confusion there, but you need to follow the reasoning.
-There's an entire section explicitly explaining the notion of "urgency" and the specific way in which I use it - a facet of suffering reflecting the need to do something about it.
-I rigorously avoid the use of moral realist language as it pertains to actions (“ought”, “should”, “right” and “wrong”) and explain why, while still allowing for descriptors like “good” and “bad” as mapping to subjective states. The reasoning is clearly explained.
-There's a section on preference satisfaction that specifically contrasts wants and desires with the avoidance of suffering or frustration, which is what meeting needs ultimately comes down to - a running theme in the book.
I took care to clarify my terms and call attention to subtle but important differences in how these words are used, which is central to my arguments. There’s no confusion there, but you need to follow the reasoning.