@MaajidNawaz this is why rationalists should conclude morality is objective.
-
-
-
Depends on definition. I'd go as far as 'common to humanity.'
-
increasing or preserving well-being. This can be extended to animals too.
-
Yes but it's still humans who have to think it.
-
true. To the greater extent.
-
We evolved core moral emotions as social mammals and core needs. These enable a stable, consistent, very basic morality.
-
I say this to religious people who argue that their morality is objective.pic.twitter.com/VB8WJPUDhy
-
Nothing is objective coz universe doesn't care. Its what matters to us. Still need a premise even if just 'wellbeing matters.'
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I'm torn on this. On the one hand, it's a little victim-blame-y, on the other, muslims are people just like christians, jews,...
-
Huh? Talking about moral cultural relativity vs principles.
-
So am I? Your tweet seems in opposition to Maajid's. I agree his condemnation is harsh but I think I prefer his principle to....
-
No, no! I'm quoting him approvingly! He said all of that.
-
OK wow. Not sure I'd take such an extreme stance. I do understand that many people just live their lives w/o overthinking...
-
I don't think he's extreme. They're talking abt whether its ok to stone women for adultery. Other bloke said yes co rules.
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.