What on earth could “best” mean, since these things “just are”?
-
-
Replying to @EveKeneinan
That's what we have to discuss. We're moral animals. We're going to moralise, set premises, argue for them.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @EveKeneinan
Is there a rule of thumb you use to determine what morals govern mankind?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @absoparanam @EveKeneinan
We have many. I'd argue for going by the needs & desires common to all of us. Safety, food, freedom, medical care.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @EveKeneinan
Based on that answer, let me rephrase - so what if safety or medicine or common desires are neglected?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @absoparanam @EveKeneinan
People will suffer. My moral premise of prioritising human wellbeing makes me oppose human suffering.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @EveKeneinan
Right but so what if people suffer. What is the ontological value in trying to prevent that. So what if they do.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @absoparanam @EveKeneinan
I've explained that my premise is that human wellbeing is paramount. Therefore I oppose human suffering.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
That's a fine goal. All I was asking is why that should be a measure of morality and the question who cares if they suffer
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @absoparanam
Its consistent among humans to wish to avoid suffering & obtain comfort & to empathise with others' suffering or joy.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
It's a purely human thing. I am not claiming these moral emotions exist independently of humans or matter in any grand scheme.
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.