"Moral facts are facts about cooperation, and the conditions and practices that support or undermine it."https://academic.oup.com/bjps/article-abstract/68/4/981/2669734?redirectedFrom=fulltext …
-
-
It's cooperation in the non-cognitive sense: an intrinsic motivation being followed, not a reflective strategy being played. Not something one does, but something one is. Your imagined cooperative evil alien, like p-zombies, is a philosophical overthought.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If the aliens are cooperative with us, they're not evil. If you mean they're evil towards someone else besides us (f.ex. to members of their own species), then this means that they're not cooperative with those to whom they inflict evil.
-
But what if the aliens are cooperative between themselves and we are cooperative which other humans but our values aren't compatible so we don't want to cooperate with each other . does that make us ( and the aliens) both evil?
-
Or is being cooperative whith humans necessary ? Are you saying cooperation = goodness or cooperation with humans implies goodness.
-
I'm noping out of this thread, but not before saying that the concept of evil exists only in the mind. But don't think that evil is not real! Remember that our minds and the ideas they contain are part of the world, too. I think you can make yourself an answer out of that.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Cartels are also cooperative. I would follow Kant in saying that cooperation can only be moral to the point that it doesn't cancel out freedom.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The article was about human moral facts. Presumably the evil aliens have evolved their own, different moral system.
-
It's more trivially refuted by moral facts relating to the treatment of one's own children. Very few implications for cooperation there.
-
"Very few" is the same as "some", which implies that this is not a refutation at all. Because, in order to properly refute it, it must be shown that there are *no* implications.
-
Presumably, in the presented model, the moral values related to children are to be interpreted as a form of cooperation between the parents, the children, and the rest of society.
-
Right, that just doesn't make any sense though. There's a strong evolutionary drive to take care of one's own children. The cooperative implications are tiny in comparison.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.