i don't think his premise is arbitrary. i also know that doesn't mean that human prosperity is some ultimate goal of the universe either
-
-
Replying to @Zambrijc @jackcrafty
There can be a variety of coherent moral positions & no objective marker to measure them by. Not so for facts.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @jackcrafty
well harris' argument is that values reduce down to facts about the universe
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Zambrijc @jackcrafty
No, he says there are real facts to be known abt human wellbeing but first we have to prioritise human wellbeing in a secular way.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @jackcrafty
what is the well-being of conscious creatures if not a set of facts about the universe? /2
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Zambrijc @jackcrafty
But we still have to decide to prioritise the wellbeing of conscious creatures. Universe doesn't tell us to do that. Humanism does.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
We set the premise first. Then look for facts to inform us how best to do go about it.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @jackcrafty
'who's to say that we should prioritize principles of matter & energy in the study of chemistry?' my religious text says 'god did it'.../2
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Zambrijc @jackcrafty
I don't know what you mean. I agree with Harris. We prioritise humans coz were human not coz its objectively moral
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @jackcrafty
i disagree. i think morality is objective. that can seem self-serving, but isn't necessarily, (we could extend morality to animals, etc.)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Then we're talking past each other & have different meanings of objective
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.