The argument could certainly be used to that effect to render any neuroscientific look at concepts like love and justice meaningless. 1/manyhttps://twitter.com/Auto_Math/status/854265768925691904 …
Did you read the article? It was talking about definitions of concepts neuroscientists look at.
-
-
Yes I read the article. It just doesn't matter if trolley problems are in some ethical traditions not moral problems.
-
What is being moral is a spiritual question rather than a material question. The material question is about the difference in response.
-
Or philosophical depending on how you define these, yes. Considering morality in the abstract rather than as cognitive & behavioural thing.
-
Indeed, otherwise I fear the emergence of naturalistic/moralistic fallacies and both lead to the abuse of science and ethics.
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.