Yes, and I said that it wasn't enough at all, because it can leave you stuck in in-group/out-group dynamics.
We have to work with what we've got! And this requires expanding our empathy, yes. Are you suggesting there is something outside our evolved natures which give us a moral sense and facts that we can discover to inform us how best to go about acting on them? If so, what?
-
-
What I'm suggesting is that it is through rationality, based on our moral sentiments, that we get to moral values. And, of course, facts can inform those moral values. But to be able to choose which facts to pay attention to, you need already a set of moral values in place.
-
But you accept that they come from humans? Humans who evolved brains capable of producing moral values and, in fact, incapable of not producing them?
-
Of course I do! Look, I'm trained as a scientist. I'm not a philosopher. Philosophy is just another interest of mine. But I talk about both.
-
Then I don't know where your disagreement with Sam Harris or James is.
-
The disagreement is with the fact that Sam Harris states that we can derive moral values from scientific facts alone.
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.