Some people feel our human experience is diminished if we understand how it works cognitively, particularly in the case of love & art.
-
-
So we reject moral relativism then (I hope) because one is clearly good and the other clearly bad...
-
I think so, yes, because my premise is that individual human wellbeing matters. Others disagree & we need to show why they're wrong.
-
This is why I suggested JP interview - in it he addresses this very powerfully from evolutionary perspective
-
I don't have much confidence in him. He tends to talk a lot of obscure weirdness about religion, gender & truth.
-
He rewards close engagement. He is absolutely for each individual as intrinsically valuable and important
-
OK, I agree with him on free speech. I just prefer not to listen to him too much generally.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Ftr, I do think there are versions of consequentialism that can bridge the gap but nothing will force eugenicists to subscribe to it.
-
For instance, my pet framework seeks to optimize values among agents in a given society and eugenics violates my framework's goals overtly.
-
Values are arbitrary to agents but whether or not and to what degree they're optimized is an objective proposition.
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.