And how do you decide what facts to choose from the nearly infinite amount you can collect to inform your moral values?
-
-
Okay! Totally agree! But don't you see that to do what you did there you have moral values before you decide about the facts to choose from?
-
Yes, that's why I said that you have to have a moral premise before you decide about the facts to choose from. Has someone suggested you don't need one?
-
Yes, but the problem is that some people here are saying that you can leave morality completely to science.
-
They seem to have left the conversation long before I found it because this is what is confusing me. Who says this? Science can explain why we are moral animals and what moral foundations and drives are hardwired, obv, but it didn't put them there & we still need to set premises.
-
Great! That's what I've been saying from the very beginning. But this all started because of a discussion surrounding Rawls and the original position.
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.