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.
-
-
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 @Plato4Now and
Sure, I agree. My point (which I perhaps could have made better earlier) is that universalist ethics defy human nature and demand moral arguments that transcend scientific facts.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @BDSixsmith @Plato4Now and
This is still part of the response to the hypothetical scientist who doesn't know this? It seems like everyone in the conversation knows this.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @Plato4Now and
Well, Sam Harris sometimes seems not to appreciate it, as did Michael Shermer a couple of weeks ago. But I'll duck out before this thread turns into a melee.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BDSixsmith @Plato4Now and
No, I don't think so. Not in the Moral Landscape, anyway. He gives a rationale for the premise of prioritising the wellbeing of conscious creatures in that this is a pancultural human priority but he still sets a premise.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @BDSixsmith and
Exactly! There's a premise. And it's not derived from scientific facts themselves. It's a matter of values.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
But these come from our brains, right? You're not calling the fact that we have moral brains something which can't explain why we have moral values?
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @BDSixsmith and
Yes, they come from our brains. Again, nothing metaphysical, no ghost in the machine, no soul, no nothing of that.
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.