Being fully rational requires taking stock of the whole. To focus exclusively on good (or bad) is to make a partial judgment. To deny the Enlightenment's responsibility for anything bad after, say, 1750 while giving it credit for everything good thereafter is a double standard.
-
-
Replying to @Plato4Now @disitinerant and
One of the good things about the Enlightenment was the process that began where we test things and recognise the bad as bad and weed it out. We'll never get things perfect but this is the only way to get better.
4 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @disitinerant and
3/ And it can’t make sense of itself, by answering questions like “what is truth,” “what is knowledge,” “what is being,” and so on. To make sense of her science—as such, let alone in the scheme of wider life—the scientist must go beyond science. As we’re doing here.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plato4Now @HPluckrose and
Just wanted to add that even if there could be an objective definition of "wellbeing" it would not imply, in and of itself, that we are obligated to care about other people's.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @BDSixsmith @Plato4Now and
No, you'd need to add some neuroscience to show that we can't help that if neurologically typical. It's part of being a social species. It doesn't matter on a broader scale what we do. Humanity generally only matters to humanity. And maybe dogs. ;-)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @Plato4Now and
Heh. We certainly care about those close to us. But caring about people people we have never met is a very modern and far from universal trend.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BDSixsmith @Plato4Now and
Yes, this doesn't detract from the fact that empathy strongly informs Y drives our moral sense as social mammals. Those who don't have empathy, eg psychopaths, very often don't have morality or have difficulty with it.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @BDSixsmith and
Of course! But what I mean is that empathy by itself doesn't guarantee that moral values will expand to encompass other human beings, particularly the ones who aren't part of the in-group.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @TheDissenterYT @BDSixsmith and
.Well, no. There's no need to go from the claim that our sense of empathy is a large driver of our moral sense to that claim that we apply it well and universally and I don't think anyone did claim that, did they?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Ah. No Pointing out that empathy exists and drives morality does not indicate that humans empathise universally. Just that it exists and drives morality.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @BDSixsmith and
Of course. No side here denied the importance of underlying moral sentiments.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.